The Forge Archives

Point of clarification regarding Illusionism (a style of play with Covert Force) -

I had read in the last couple of days that when Illusionism was in Force that the players were not expressing CA.  That is not correct.

As far as the players were concerned, they were expressing CA.  The issue lies in that the "statements" made (the created Theme, the nature of the Victory, the shape of the Dream) have been perverted, tainted, and otherwise altered by subterfuge without the players' knowledge.  IOW the product's credibility has been compromised, as has been the players' intentions, not their earnestness to express.

Thus in diagnosis, (should it come to light later) its not that CA is difficult to determine, but the players' "message".  I use the term message with regards to Victory, the Dream, and Theme, as roleplay is a discourse process whereby the product was created by consensual (the Lumpley Principle!) communications.

I put this here because I couldn't find where I had read the original comment.

I think part of what is going on is this: sometimes the illusionism is detected (in Mike's game, the riders were declared powerful when the PC's tried to attack)--and because the players aren't outraged, it's considered functional.

But I think what's being conflated here is the idea that just because the GM "railroads" the PC's to a meeting with the mayor that the meat of the game is similarly tainted.

I.e. the "all or nothing" mind-set.

If a player, at minute 1 of the game decided that he was going to address his character's premise by attacking the riders and was prevented from doing so because the GM had other ideas about the flow of the game, he could rightly say that his attempt at Nar play was squashed in favor of the GM's story.

But if, after the set-up scene, the GM did no more of that sort of illusionism then the player would be able to address premise throughout the rest of the game (presumably resulting in a Narrativist game).

I think that in many cases illusionism (or illusionist techniques) are seen as a compromise with the GM rather than a case of the GM weilding tyranical control over the game.

But that means that player creation of Theme (or anything else) stands at somewhere between 0 and 100% and that how much Player Input they have in a given respect is probably well described as a gradient (or, perhaps better, with conditionals).

-Marco

Hey Marco,

I have only 10 seconds to reply.

But I am with you on that sliding scale, which is why I have argued that some applications of Force can be employed in all CA's to some degree.  I think that to declare that Force is automatically verbotem in a CA is a mistake.  One could say that Force is usally not well accepted given  a CA expression, but absent or antithetical to is dangerously wrong.

Point of claification -

In your example of when the players discover Illusionism in effect and decide to go along with it, that decision makes that particular play moment participationism, not Illusionism.

Furhtermore - I would argue there are no real Illusionist techniques, but Force applied in under certain circumstances.  I think perhaps in the future it would be best to use the term Force directly and qualify it with means in which is was applied because while the effects on the SIS might be the same, the players involvement vary tremendously and thus acknowledges the social contract level of the game as well.

Hiya,

Jay, you wrote,

QuoteOne could say that Force is usally not well accepted given a CA expression, but absent or antithetical to is dangerously wrong.

To which I have two responses.

"Ah, fuck off."

and

"Yes. The phrase 'by definition' when I talked about how Force is not compatible with Narrativist play was over-statement."

With some effort, I'm going to adopt the latter response. I'm including the first, however, because you and a number of others are pissing me off.

Specifically: the author of any given essay is continually struggling with how things really are vs. how they seem to fit together at the moment of writing. People who really contribute to the development of our ideas here understand that, and join the author in his or her struggle. People who want to play graduate student don't understand that, and

Objections to any and all points in the first context are welcome. Dramatic rhetoric in the second context is not.

For instance, you say, "dangerously wrong." Really? Dangerous to whom? Is someone about to lose an eye? You're dealing with me, and I have absolutely no compunction about telling you that, when you say that, you're being a graduate-student dick.

That is in addition to acknowledging your and Marco's point about Force - theoretically, it is not valid to say it's incompatible with Narrativist play. Can you see that I'm in here pitching with the rest of you and as such am perfectly capable of accepting a valid point?  Or will you spot what you see as an Oh My God Caught Him in a Contradiction and post it triumphantly?

The graduate student does the latter and dresses it up as a super-great and world-saving conclusion.

Best,
Ron

Not all illusionist techniques are necessarily "force" in that the invalidate player choices. Some are used precisely to enhance player choice.

Let's suppose that my players haven't done anything interesting for a while, and I see a long boring lag time ahead if I don't think of something. Fortunately, a roll of the dice tells me there's a wandering monster, and that spices things up a bit. I can do something with that. The wandering monster is perceived as "inevitable", something that was here that they were bound to encounter when they got here. It isn't. There is nothing in my notes about an encounter here. That's an illusion.

O.K., let's get rid of the dice. I need to spice things up, so I create an encounter, on the spot, and pretend that it was inevitable. I've just used an illusionist technique to make the game more interesting. No force was involved, and no agenda-related choices were vacated.

Illusionism is a total referee approach that invalidates agenda-related choices and usually many other choices for the sake of what the referee wishes to have happen in his story. Illusionist techniques include force (which directly invalidates agenda-related choices) but also many other techniques. They can be used to validate player choices.

I'll give you one. I've got a couple of players right now working on solving a mystery. They've been completely off track, looking in the wrong place, getting scraps when there's a lot to be had if they just moved to the right place. They tried a particular skill as an investigative technique, and the dice said that it worked well. There really was nothing to discover there by that technique, but I considered the matter and at that instant I invented a clue that could point them in the right direction. I had not considered that information before that moment, and would not have considered it had I not felt that their successful efforts deserved something to assist their investigation. That sudden creation of the clue is an illusionist technique. The player feel as if they uncovered something that was there, that they did a good job of using their skills to gain information--and in a sense they did, but it's a metagame sense. The characters found the information because when I as referee saw the success I felt it would make the game most interesting if instead of saying "Your investigation demonstrates to you that there's nothing to learn here" I said "Your investigation gives you this piece of information which may be significant." I used an illusionist technique to support player choices and enhance the outcome that came from them. I did it covertly and without force.

Illusionism includes force and other illusionist techniques to vacate player choice. It's not a sliding scale; it's the extreme end of the scale. Illusionist techniques are used by every referee worth his salt, to some degree (ask Tomas HVM). If they're used well, they empower players in their choices.

I hope this clarifies the matter.

--M. J. Young

M.J.?  Those aren't illusionist techniques.  The "illusion" in Illusionism is the illusion that the players have a choice.  Inventing a monster on the spot or giving the players a clue for a good roll isn't that.  Having the monster beat them no matter what they do or giving them the clue no matter how well they roll, when they believe that what they do matters, that's Illusionism.

-Vincent

Hello,

I agree with Vincent.

However, I also think we're getting away from Jay's actual topic.

Quotein diagnosis, (should it come to light later) its not that CA is difficult to determine, but the players' "message". I use the term message with regards to Victory, the Dream, and Theme, as roleplay is a discourse process whereby the product was created by consensual (the Lumpley Principle!) communications

I buy that. The players' "message" turns out to be feeble and flickering at best, or in some way shunted away from its expression into the SIS in the fashion that they expected.

On the other hand, my comments about the Black Curtain being purposefully left in place in the Narrativism essay might be worth reviewing. It may be best to think of that approach to play being a form of Participationism, as my above post seems to lean toward.

Best,
Ron

I'm going to pick up this in a new thread, http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=134376">Illusionist Techniques.

--M. J. Young

Hey Ron,

Quote from: Ron EdwardsOn the other hand, my comments about the Black Curtain being purposefully left in place in the Narrativism essay might be worth reviewing. It may be best to think of that approach to play being a form of Participationism, as my above post seems to lean toward.

I buy that.  Its funny, no matter how often I read those darn things, there is always something that slips by unnoticed.

Just to recap –

In essence then, In Participationist play, the DM is doing some editing on the "message."    That does not mean total control, just some editorial influence.  That amount can vary from group to group, but as long as everyone is on the same page with that action, then all is right in the world.  The players are all Expressing CA, and the DM is editing it to a certain degree.

Hello,

In Participationist play, the GM can exert all kinds of Force - the players just don't have a problem with it. I do this all the time when I'm running what I consider to be a fairly Simulationist-facilitating game, e.g. Pocket Universe or Hidden Legacy (to pick two very different examples).

"Let's see, I figure you guys are taking off to track the poachers. And you guys over here, you're traveling east, OK?"

All the players nod. Sometimes in such a game I don't even bother to ask, I just say.

See, in our games of Sorcerer, HeroQuest (then Hero Wars), or most others, this would be an unforgivable breach of Social Contract and Creative Agenda. But in the Hidden Legacy game, for instance, our whole goal was to have fun set-pieces with fun character interactions, much as I remember from my various experiences with Call of Cthulhu and Feng Shui. The players knew I was just editing out a whole bunch of uninteresting crap by reaching out across the table, seizing the characters by their li'l heads, and saying "go here, do this, make this decision."

That's what Participationism is like, as I see it - plenty of Force, exerted in a variety of ways, but not behind any Black Curtain and with basic blanket acceptance that it'll happen on everyone's part.

Best,
Ron

Hey Ron,

We are actually in total agreement.

My mind was focused on some work I've been considering about the model.  In the way that particle physics sees the forces of nature as being manifestations of the same thing via symmetry breaking, I've been looking at parts of the model.

My apologies for the strange vocab usage.  My mind was in a very different frame of reference.  I go with your phrasing as being much more comprehensible and accessible.