What is Illusionism?

[Le Joueur]

(Quoting to answer questions, not to pick.)

Are you sure it's control of the "characters' major decisions" or controlling the effects of those "major decisions?" I mean, is the gamemaster constraining what I (as a player) choose or what I have to choose from?

To answer the second question first, it's either one. Constraining what the player has to choose from is more subtle and probably more effective Illusionism. It's also pretty common. "You can accept the leggy dame's case, or you can sit in your office and wonder how you're going to pay the rent. The choice is completely up to you." (Okay, that's not subtle. But it could be.)

That's Hobson's choice (and it sounds a lot like how Steve's games go, or Mike's 'magician example').

As for the first question, the very idea of players having control over the effects of player-characters' decisions is a highly Narrativist concept. Players expecting gamistic or simulationistic decision-making on the GM's part certainly do not expect to have control over the effects of those decisions. (Nor do they really expect the gamemaster to have control over them either; that's what rules and/or dice and/or tables are for.)

I'm not so convinced about it being entirely Narrativist.  Take for example, using the verisimilitude measure for a Simulationist gaming situation.  To support verisimilitude, a decision by a player character should have consistent expectable effects.  When they don't, it begins to fail in verisimilitude, and can be motivated by Illusionism.  Regardless of the motivation, it is the effect, which the player expects under verisimilar Simulationism, which is constrained not the choice.  And that's definitely not Narrativist, it has only to do with the expectation of verisimilitude (in this example, others could be made).

Come to think of it, most of the examples of Gamist player character decisions I know of, are chosen precisely for their specific effect!  You set off the explosives when the villain is on top of them because of what you expect the effects to be.  That's why I tend to think of effects instead of decisions.  I'm guessing we're talking past each other again.

I agree with you it smacks of Narrativism to have a player describe the effects of a character's decision, but I think that stating a character's decision predicates a restricted list of potential effects.  When that list is abrogated by the gamemaster is what I see us trying to get at when I suggest using the word "affect."

I'm happier focusing on control over the decisions themselves, though that is tricky in other ways. The most egregious and common cases of GM domination of the player-characters (though not necessarily the most common Illusionistic cases) involve a GM saying things like "No, your character won't do that." It does get tricky when the GM expresses that control as failure in the attempt rather than as refusal to allow the attempt (that is, refusal to allow the character to decide to make the attempt) or even as success followed by arbitrary punishment. I was hoping we could interpret those cases as equivalent to not allowing the character to make the decision, which the GM misrepresents as in-game failure of the attempt to act upon the decision or as an in-game consequence of that decision (that's the illusion). But the only thing that can really distinguish this from normal messy real-world play is the GM's intent and that sense of fairness you talked about.

I guess I'm a little uncomfortable equating decisions with in-game failure as controlling the decision rather than controlling the effects.  The failure, to me, is of the intended effect, not of the decision.  But how would you rewrite the description to reflect this?  I don't know.

Without stating that the gamemaster is 'not allowing' a decision by making it a failure or providing negative consequences, you pretty much lose the whole point in calling it Illusionism.  It might as well be Domineeringism then.

As an aside:

'Fairness' is a dangerously loaded term, and it's only two syllables. (I have a theory that words in this field get harder to define the fewer syllables they have. No one ever has trouble with the six-syllable "verisimilitude." A great word. Always clear. At the opposite extreme we have "game." Pure dynamite. "Fair" likewise.)

Actually, I parallel this idea but out to the whole realm of 'plain English.'  To me, users of 'plain English' over the years have added more and more meanings (and meaning) to the simpler, or plainer, words.  Longer words have less usage and fall outside of 'plain English' and therefore don't 'evolve' more meanings nearly as fast.  (Look into the etymology of 'flammable' if you want a good example.)

Fang Langford

[Mike Holmes]

That's Hobson's choice (and it sounds a lot like how Steve's games go, or Mike's 'magician example').

Yes. In Walt's defense, he did point out how it wasn't really a good example of an illusion. But subtle "forcing" of player activity is a big part of Illusionism. As with any magician's force maneuver, the illusion is that the player made the decision, when in reality it was the GM. Classic.

I guess I'm a little uncomfortable equating decisions with in-game failure as controlling the decision rather than controlling the effects.  The failure, to me, is of the intended effect, not of the decision.  But how would you rewrite the description to reflect this?  I don't know.

Without stating that the gamemaster is 'not allowing' a decision by making it a failure or providing negative consequences, you pretty much lose the whole point in calling it Illusionism.  It might as well be Domineeringism then.

Except for when it is done using actual Illusionist tactics. One that I have pointed out before as a favorite of min is related to the "force" tactic above. It goes like this. I want the player to fail at a particular roll. I refrain from telling the player what the target number is. Then if he rolls poorly, I don't need an illusion. If the roll is high, I pretend to do the calculation, and announce, "close, but not quite". Either way, you then emphasize the level of the characters skill in the narration as it "affected" the outcome. The player feels that they are still on a level playing field and yet the GM retains control over he scenario.

The example that I've used previously is doing library research in CoC. Lets say that for pacing reasons (we've all been at that point in CoC) I want a particular Library roll to go well.  If the player rolls high, no illusion needed, I just hand over the relevant info. If the roll is low, I announce that the player wasn't able to find much   and hand over the exact same information. The illusion is that there is more to be found in this case, but the player does not have access to it due to the poor roll.

Again, a classic example of what I, personally, have been refering to as Illusionism, and one I've made reference to more than once in my description of it. As an example of how I am certain that my players expect this of me, one of my players actually prefers for me to roll secretly in all such possible situations, just so that the illusion is more easily maintained.

Mike

[Paul Czege]

But subtle "forcing" of player activity is a big part of Illusionism.

A common and very effective subtle forcing, which depending on how the definition shakes out, may not end up being Illusionism per se, is accomplished through the GM's handling of Intent/Initiation/Execution/Effect (or whatever we decided was the definitive set of terms). Players who announce actions that aren't in alignment with what the GM wants for the story he's working up are subtly held at Intent with a response like, "Okay, roll for initiative." Players who announce actions that the GM is interested in, perhaps because they trigger a trap, or NPC response, or something he's pre-scripted, are jumped right to Execution...or Effect.

Paul

[Mike Holmes]

That, Paul, is a perfect example of a type of Illusionist tool, much like the other tools that I'm talking about. Again, the extent that it Illusionism is the extent that it's done surreptitiously so that the players are not distracted by the "inconsistency". Done in the open or with the players consent, this is probably a better tool for Narrativism, and is obviously not Illusionism.

Mike

[Walt Freitag]

Here's a more subtle way than Hobson's Choice of subverting player-character free will. I never bothered to name the phenomenon before, but I'll call it The Teacher's Pet. It happens when there is one player who has two metagame characteristics: a strong leader personality relative to the other players, and a willingness to follow the gamemaster's lead, however subtle it might be, for the perceived good of the game. The GM can secretly lead the Teacher's Pet in whatever way is effective, and the remaining players will follow along, believing they're following the Teacher's Pet's character's in-game leadership rather than the gamemaster's plot. This can occur by explicit prearrangement, making the Teacher's Pet character a semi-NPC under the GM's explicit (though hidden) control, or it can happen quite by accident, with all the individuals slipping into their meta-roles without anyone (perhaps not even the GM) consciously realizing it. Some who consider themselves great Illusionists may actually have been fortunate in having a Teacher's Pet in their group. I've had to actively prevent my wife from naturally slipping into a too-cooperative Teacher's Pet meta-role when she plays in games I run.

If we're going to consider defining Illusionism broadly, as more or less any use (or perhaps any persistent pattern of use) of illusion in a role playing game, then it may be worth looking into a number of spectra over which the use of illusion can vary.

1. What type of illusion? Recently discussed examples include:

-- subverting player-character free will (forcing a course of decision, such as by subtle Hobson's Choices or leading based on successfully predicting what options players will choose; playing with a teacher's pet)

-- breaking causal objectivity (deciding success/failure results that are believed to be determined by chance; or deciding outcomes that are believed to be determined by success/failure results)

-- breaking situational objectivity (altering a plot to wrap around player's choices; giving a villain a little more strength so that he can still put up a good fight after the player-characters cleverly exploit his weakness)

-- breaking situational and setting objectivity (altering an entire setting or timeline when creating or modifying a plot on the fly)

2. How much is it used? Very rarely (an occasional tweak to solve unusual problems that arise) to always (a staple of the gamemaster's technique)

3. Used with what degree of consent? Explicit agreement against the use of the technique [deceit]; strong situational implicit agreement against it [e.g. in a tournament; also deceit]; completely successful deception; tolerated suspicion (players think there's something going on but they like the way the game goes so they don't question it), tacit acceptance or encouragement; explicit acceptance or encouragement. As has been mentioned, different levels of knowledge or consent may exist for the abstract game-as-a-whole than for specific instances of a technique's use.

4. Applied to game elements on what scale? A key variable easy to overlook. Free will may be subverted only on major decisions, or only on minor ones, or on in-between ones, or some combination. Setting objectivity may be broken only on the large scale (whole cities move around as needed but remain intact [in my first commercial computer game Star Saga: One whole planets were relocated as needed, to my knowledge the only computer game ever to utilize illusionism on that scale], or on the small scale ( he cities are fixed on the map but the streets or buildings or individual characters are in flux), or in between, or some combination. A plot may be in flux in its ultimate outline but individual sub-plots or encounters within it be pre-planned in detail, or the overall outline may be pre-planned but individual sub-plots shifted or created on the fly, or in between, or some combination.

I'm enjoying the exercise of trying to imagine "the full range" of illusion in RPGs. For example, suppose a GM playing in an overtly Narrativist system feels non-creative one session, and secretly rolls dice to decide what happens instead of inventing Story. Should that be covered under the definition of Illusionism?

That scenario reminds me of an old party game where a sucker player is told he must figure out the plot of a story made up by the other party guests, by asking yes/no questions. The guests actually use a random method to answer yes/no to each question, so the player is actually inventing all the elements of the story himself but doesn't realize it. (The fun is, the resulting stories are often really sick and twisted.) That's not an RPG, of course, but I could see something analogous happening in an RPG context, making it the exact illusionistic opposite of plot domination by the gamemaster.

- Walt

[Le Joueur]

I realize that this thread has rightly moved on to singing the praises of Illusionism (how else to learn what it is, then to hear the best way to do it?), but I have a bit of misunderstanding about what I was saying.

That's Hobson's choice (and it sounds a lot like how Steve's games go, or Mike's 'magician example').

Yes. In Walt's defense, he did point out how it wasn't really a good example of an illusion. But subtle "forcing" of player activity is a big part of Illusionism. As with any magician's force maneuver, the illusion is that the player made the decision, when in reality it was the GM. Classic.

"Magacian's force?"  Do you mean; "Would the lovely young lady in the front row choose between these two ferocious beasts?"

She chooses the one you've set up for the trick: "Then you have consigned this one to oblivion..."

She chooses the other: "My lady has chosen the beast to be spared..."

Is that what you meant?

I guess I'm a little uncomfortable equating decisions with in-game failure as controlling the decision rather than controlling the effects.  The failure, to me, is of the intended effect, not of the decision.  But how would you rewrite the description to reflect this?  I don't know.

Without stating that the gamemaster is 'not allowing' a decision by making it a failure or providing negative consequences, you pretty much lose the whole point in calling it Illusionism.  It might as well be Domineeringism then.

Except for when it is done using actual Illusionist tactics. One that I have pointed out before as a favorite of mine is related to the "force" tactic above. It goes like this. I want the player to fail at a particular roll. I refrain from telling the player what the target number is. Then if he rolls poorly, I don't need an illusion. If the roll is high, I pretend to do the calculation, and announce, "close, but not quite". Either way, you then emphasize the level of the characters skill in the narration as it "affected" the outcome. The player feels that they are still on a level playing field and yet the GM retains control over he scenario.

I guess the question I was begging was, when I said "'not allowing' a decision by making it a failure or providing negative consequences" I meant 'indirect' methods (I don't what other term I can use so here I give examples).  'Magicians force' and a disguised Hobson's choice are also 'indirect.'  Wfreitag's description does not indicate this 'indirect' quality.  If you don't indicate that the 'constraint' is indirect or covert, doesn't that subvert the inherent quality of what you're doing?  ('Indirect' would be Illusionism; 'indirect' as well as 'direct' would be Domineeringism.)

I forget who, but someone pointed out that saying 'you don't do that,' is constraining to a players 'control.'  This would be 'direct constraint.'  Does this count as Illusionist or is there grounds for some indication of this quality of 'indirectness' (that I cannot seem to express) in the formal description?  I'm appealing to you as champion of the practice to help me understand the place of 'indirectness' in what could become Illusionism's formal description.

That's where my confusion lay.

Fang Langford

[Walt Freitag]

Hi Fang,

I think a quality of "indirectness" has to be there. But I'm not sure that's the right word. (This seems to be the tricky part; we've already considered "without player knowledge" and "without player consent" as alternatives to "indirectly" and they had their pitfalls too.) For one thing, faking the outcome of a fortune roll (saying "you just missed it" when the in-system result was a success) is not very indirect (though admittedly, it's more indirect than saying "the die roll says it's a success, but I'm ruling that you failed anyway"). In that case, the secrecy appears more important than how direct it is.

In the list in my previous post, I was trying to classify types of illusion, not define them. You have to read an implied "surreptitiously" or "without players' knowledge" for each item. Any individual instance of the same practices, done openly, is not illusion.

I think Mike Holmes was speaking about magician's forces in general. The specific example you describe is one of them, called the Magician's Choice. There are dozens if not hundreds of different forces described in the stage magic literature. (Most apply only to cards, and most are rarely used.) But the Magician's Choice is among the simplest, and therefore among the most generally useful.

Here's another type of stage magic force, in the "breaking causal objectivity" class, that a GM could conceivably use when circumstances call for a player-character to be selected at random but the GM wants to force the result. GM: "I'm writing down a number" (writes down a number on a post-it sheet; the paper is visible but not the number written; sticks the post-it to the inside of the GM screen); "everyone roll a d10 and whoever rolls closest is the one who [the dragon breathes on, or whatever]." Players roll, the GM looks at the rolls or the players call them out, then the GM chooses one of ten post-its on which he's previously written down ten different numbers, and shows the paper as incontrovertible proof of the player's misfortune.

This is an illustration, not a recommedation. Actually doing it would be silly (the problem with most elaborate forces). All the rigamarole just calls attention to itself. Instead just say, "the dragon breathes on...", make a finger motion as if you're counting the players at the table, roll a die behind a screen, ignore it, point to the player whose character is most in need of a righteous deprotagonizing by fire, "YOU!" Though never mentioned back then in the rule books, this practice is as old-school as low-impact green d8s. Sometimes deniability is more important than deception.

- Walt

[edited to clarify the third paragraph about the Magician's Choice]
[edited again in the third paragraph to delete an accidental and unneeded definite article, and thereby avoid objectifying Mike Holmes]

[Mike Holmes]

"Magacian's force?"  Do you mean; "Would the lovely young lady in the front row choose between these two ferocious beasts?"

--Snip perfect example--

Is that what you meant?

Pre"fricken"cisely. I use stuff like that all the time. The players pick from several adds in the paper. They choose which fork in the road to go down. They choose which inn to stay at. Whatever they choose, the plot goes ahead regardless.

I guess the question I was begging was, when I said "'not allowing' a decision by making it a failure or providing negative consequences" I meant 'indirect' methods (I don't what other term I can use so here I give examples).  'Magicians force' and a disguised Hobson's choice are also 'indirect.'  Wfreitag's description does not indicate this 'indirect' quality.  If you don't indicate that the 'constraint' is indirect or covert, doesn't that subvert the inherent quality of what you're doing?  ('Indirect' would be Illusionism; 'indirect' as well as 'direct' would be Domineeringism.)

Your point is well taken. If someone were to just say, "Your character does that", then that would be Doineeringism, sure. But as I said, the point it becomes Illusionism is the point at which the GM attempt to hide the force from the player. If the player remains oblivious (or suspends disbelief), then this is successful Illusionism. Failure to hide successfully is failed Illusionism, and, as mentioned, problematic.

So, your point about indirectness is correct if I'm reading it right. The GM must be attempting to engage the player by making him think that it is the player's decision that is important (while in actuality it is not). I've played in a Domineeringism game or two, and quit after one session.

I would say that there are probably players for whom this is also an acceptable play method, however (Marco's described players approach this). Again, they would be those Participationists, or whatever I tried to delineate earlier, and not far from what I refer to as Joinerism. As such, and to be politically correct, we should probably make the label Domineeringism (if we choose to keep it) refer to the situation in which the GM does this outside of player consent (Social Contract), in which case it is obviously a dysfunctional style of play.

We should then have a label that describes the (possibly entirely theoretical) style where the players cede voluntarily almost all power to the GM in an open fashion. The only power they would have remaining is to suggest, essentially, the form of dialog, and particular character actions, knowing that these choices will have no effect on the plot, and that this fact will be obvious and out in the open.

Mike

[Mike Holmes]

Though never mentioned back then in the rule books, this practice is as old-school as low-impact green d8s. Sometimes deniability is more important than deception.

Right, generally known as Fudging a roll. Perhaps the most classic Illusionist tool. As such, however, the one most known by players, and, therefore, having the least value in actually giving players the feeling of objectivity sought. But a classic example, nonetheless.

My example of the "phantom target number" is a slightly more sophisticated and somewhat more effective version of exactly the same thing. IME.

Note, that for the humorless, that Walt's statement that this be done for reasons of deprotagonization were meant in jest. The functional illusionist would use such a maneuver to protagonize a particular character (since story is the desired outcome of Illusionism), perhaps displaying a particular characters fortitude by having the dragon flame him.

Mike

[Paul Czege]

Hey Walt,

A nice series of posts.

suppose a GM playing in an overtly Narrativist system feels non-creative one session, and secretly rolls dice to decide what happens instead of inventing Story. Should that be covered under the definition of Illusionism?

I think you're dangerously close to equating Narrativism with Drama resolution. Narrativism does not require story to be created from whole cloth, but accepts input from Fortune (and Karma) mechanics no problem. I think what you're intending to ask is whether any covert instance of GM subversion of a game's resolution system should be considered Illusionism. It's an interesting question. Should we consider a GM's covert subversion of a Drama resolution system by way of a tacked on Fortune mechanic to be just as much a part of Illusionism as a covert subversion of Fortune mechanics. If I took the Theatrix flowchart resolution system and penciled number ranges next to the questions, essentially reinventing it as one of those flowcharts you roll against in Gamma World to understand a high tech device, and I dice against the chart covertly, am I using Illusionism?

It brings up the core of the issue of Illusionism. And I'm not sure I have an answer. But I personally think it's a mistake to define Illusionism by looking for specific patterns of GM behavior (like a blood test for a pathogen), or for specific kinds of player resistance (like a blood test for the antibodies to the pathogen). I think it's useful to talk about indicators, but the key isn't in the indicators, it's in whether the theme of the story outcome of play was created by the player, or by the GM. Was the PC's protagonism authored in conversation between the player and the audience, or was it created through the PC by the GM. And so I'm thinking the subversion of a Drama resolution system is not going to be a defining indicator of Illusionism in a Narrativist game. It's deluding the player, but without purpose. The GM can't deliver the same kind of thematic suppository to the player with such a mechanic as he can by ignoring the result of a dice roll in favor of asserting a given outcome that's to his liking.

Paul

[Walt Freitag]

I think what you're intending to ask is whether any covert instance of GM subversion of a game's resolution system should be considered Illusionism.

Yes, you are correct about both the general thrust of the question and about what I meant specifically, which was that the GM secretly rolls dice during an occasion when the expectation is that he be narrating at will. Thank you for clarifying my meaning.

The question is entirely hypothetical, meant to test definitional concepts, not as a realistic scenario.

I've never used illusion in a Narrativism-coherent game system so I can't really imagine what practical forms Illusionism might take in that context. My suspicion is that it would be done for the purpose you suggest, to give more creative control over the player-characters' protagonism to the GM than the players expect; and that the specific techniques would most likely be very simple and akin to what we've been discussing: Hobson's choices, forces, subtle leading, and subversion of Fortune mechanisms. But they'd be applied at the level of the player-characters' Story rather than just "the plot" as they are when used in a drifting Gamist or Simulationist context.

Any teleological definition is going to be narrower than the whole scope of illusion we've been talking about, which could be good or bad. For example, suppose a GM is running a module in a gamist system. He uses some of the most basic illusions we've been talking about, such as fudging die rolls and forcing choices, to make sure the plot of the module runs to the end without the player-characters getting killed before the climax or getting stuck because they neglected to search for clues in a vital location or failed a success roll for doing so. The purpose and result of this is not going to be to make the players believe they have more control over the plot, let alone over their characters' protagonism. In fact, by finding the clues on schedule, the players are more overtly led. The illusion is that the players appear to have overcome the challenges more successfully than a truly objective system would have allowed them to. So any definition of Illusionism that requires the illusion to deceive the players about who creates the story would not include this scenario.

Another point is really bothering me right now. I'm going to lay it out in numbered sentences, to make it easy for others to point out the flaws they perceive in the argument.

1. I've read here that it's a general Forge consensus that creating a player-character and then making decisions for the player-character does not qualify as participating in creating the story even if those decisions do substantially affect the plot.

2. If that's true, then in all those systems in which player participation is limited to creating a character and then making decisions for the player-character in play, there can never be player participation in creating the story.

3. Therefore,

any belief by players in most systems that they are participating in creating the story must be an illusion, regardless of what techniques the GM does or doesn't employ.

4. Players of role-playing games almost universally believe that they are participating in creating the story.

5. Therefore, Illusionism defined as deception about who creates the story is intrinsic to almost all play in almost all popular systems.

6. Therefore, Illusionism defined as deception about who creates the story cannot exist separate from non-Narrativist role playing in general, unless we stop applying the Narrativist definition of story creation to Illusionism in non-Narrativist games.

7. This means that if we want to define Illusionism as deception about who creates the story, we must acknowledge that there are desirable and meaningful levels of story creation participation in role playing games short of player authorship of the player-character's protagonism.[/list:u]

- Walt

[contracycle]

I think what you're intending to ask is So any definition of Illusionism that requires the illusion to deceive the players about who creates the story would not include this scenario.

I think we bandy "story" about as too vague a term.  That in itself is pretty vague; but I think people often use it in two distinct ways, first as Lit101 "object", and as "retrospective recollection".  We often "create the story", in terms of player behaviour, through the acting and portrayal parts.  Our memory organises our esperience into what is, in effect, "a  story" in a very general sense.

[Valamir]

I 100% agree CC.  Every time I see "whats good for the story" or "focus on the story" etc, etc.  I shudder.

STORY is a horribly muddled and confused term and we should cease and desist to use it at a yardstick of anything.  At best its a convenient shorthand to use between people who already understand the context.  Too often, its the source of misunderstandings because the context isn't understood.

[Ron Edwards]

Walter,

I have no problem with your syllogism and especially not with #7. I'm not sure how you perceive #7 in terms of the present discourse, but it gets a big shrug from me. I expended quite a bit of space in my essay precisely to make this point:

"Story" in the broadest sense is created in a wide variety of ways, either subordinate to non-Narrativist priorities or, itself prioritized, being Narrativism itself.

Substitute "internal cause" for "story," and Simulationism for Narrativism, and the sentence still works.

Substitute "competition" or "challenge" for "story," and Gamism for Narrativism, and the sentence still works.

In other words, I'm not sure what your syllogism presents that I have not expressed previously ...

... except for #6. I agree with you entirely and am working up a definition of Illusionism that is not so Narrativist-biased. This represents a major change in the big essay and I appreciate all the time and attention you've given to the topic. I also, as I said above, need to make sure that Paul Elliott's ideas are no longer being misrepresented by me.

Best,
Ron

[Walt Freitag]

Hi Ron,

The syllogism was not intended to challenge any of your theory (except in the limited sense of possibly influencing the new definition of Illusionism). I could have stopped at #6, since that was the point that was "bothering me" and as you say, your theory already acknowledges #7. However, I included #7 as a bit of tossed-in editorializing because in discourse here it seems sometimes to get overlooked. For example, some correspondents have said that there's no substantial difference between a GM following a pre-constructed plot for which the player-characters' free will must be subverted, and constructing plot retroactively taking the player-characters' decisions into account, because neither comes up to the standard of player authorship of their characters' protagonism. This strikes me as kind of like saying there's no substantial difference between a bicycle and a car because neither can fly. End of editorializing.

In part, I've been using Illusionism as a context for scouting out the intellectual surroundings of my real targets of interest: #1 and #2. I do not regard them as proven, even when "story" is being used in the highest literary sense. I'll be taking up that question on a new thread soon.

Valamir and contracycle,

I agree that "story" is a minefield and a source of endless misunderstandings, but what can we do? It's the minefield we live in. (Some folks have it even worse; their chosen topic of discourse is "art".)

Best regards,
Walt