What is Illusionism?

[Mike Holmes]

My appologies for my sloppy use of story. When I say the illusionist GM is creating story, it must peforce mean in this context "an interestig series of events that share some but not all of the aspects of the 'Narrativist Story'".

My definition of Illusionism is colored by my own personal intent in using it. But it seems that this same intent is what Mr. Elliot was trying to get at. Which seems to me to be about: in the attempt to get to "The Impossible Thing" wherin the players are actually creating Narrativist story while using Simulationist decision-making, a GM may cause his players to experience something like what "The Impossible Thing" would theoretically feel like by using illusions to cause the players decisions to appear to create story, while instead the GM is, in actuality, creating the story. (Which I contend is superior to either other forms of Simulationism or Narrativism for certain players).

This is why I think you run into the problem with associating Illusionism with Narrativism. You could perpetuate illusions in a Narrativist game, but why do it? What's the point of this as a methodology? So I don't see this as part of the particular style. It is simply using Illusions in a Narrativist game.

IMO. I know that I am biasing everything I say to my own opinion. But I just can't see another reason to have a style called Illusionism.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Walt,

Thanks for the heads-up on the #1-2 debate topic. I think I might see where some of it is coming from, but maybe you'll surprise me.

Best,
Ron

[Le Joueur]

IMO. I know that I am biasing everything I say to my own opinion. But I just can't see another reason to have a style called Illusionism.

I was under the opinion that taking Illusionism into Narrativism was an attempt at radial symmetry within the GNS.

Illusionism does apply to Gamism in that a few Gamists like to think that they 'just barely' scrape by to the 'grand conflict' when actually the gamemaster has been adjusting the 'threat level' to match what they can handle at any given time (another "Impossible Thing" brewing).  The illusion is that they 'barely' made it and that the sequence was ever-increasing in difficulty, yet the players believe themselves to be using Gamist play techniques.

No, that didn't come out right...can anyone else explain why you'd want to use Illusionism for Gamists?

Anyway, provided that Illusionism applies to psuedo-Simulationism and psuedo-Gamism, it only follows that theorists would explore the idea of Illusionist Narrativism.  Of what value that is, is left to the reader as an exercise.

Fang Langford
(Who is, yes, quite rushed.)

[Mytholder]

No, that didn't come out right...can anyone else explain why you'd want to use Illusionism for Gamists?

Illusionist Gamism works when the GM adjusts the threat level on the fly to keep the PCs challenged. For example, the scenario calls for the PCs to slay a Dragon, then besiege a keep. The players manage to bluff their way past the Dragon, so they've got lots more firepower to use on the keep than the GM expected. Rather than let the players steamroll the castle, the GM adds to the castle's defences to keep the fight challenging.

In all three modes, the Illusion that the GM creates is "I had it planned this way all along..."

[contracycle]

Walt,

I fundamentally disagree with the direct use of the Lit101 satory structure in the RPG context.,  I think that when we fail to discuss what we mean by story we end up chasing our own tales.

Firstly, the analyses that make up lit theory are based on an analysis of a one way media.  They deal with the relationship between passive audience and active author.  I think RPG's are sufficiently distinct from such media that the formal story theory is only vaguely useful.

Most people have a casual definition of story which is essentially an anecdote, retroactively reccounted to others.  The process of constructing the dialogue and recounting the dialogue is, I think, a forming of ordering information like an informal and instinctive? system of narrative construction.  Which implies to me that a game can be run in such a way that it works post facto as a tory; the anecdotalising process will render it as entertaining as one formally designed.

[Mike Holmes]

I think that Gareth makes a good point there. In defining Story for the purposes of Narrativism's definition, I think that the importance is in player participation in creating the story. This is because even if the player fails to achieve that "Lit 101" sense story, the attempt to participate is still Narrativist. In fact, I'd say that Gareth's point about the differences in the media in question is even more important. The Story produced by Narrativism has some distinct differences from the "Lit 101" story.

For the purpose of continuing discussion I think we can probably adopt the terms Narrativist Story and Non-Narrativist Story to discuss the differences, and to speak to the definition of Narrativism. The diference between the two being that the former requires actual creation of at least part of the story by the players, whereas latter is only created by the GM.

Or have I overstated the case?

Mike

[Mike Holmes]

I agree that there is a form of Illusionism used in Gamism, and can see the point in that distinction. Interstingly it too attempts to deliver the feeling that one is experiencng two modes of play simultaneously. In the case of the exapmple, the two are Gamism and Simulationism. That is the players still are making gamist decisions, but the GM uses Illusions to make the world seem Simulationist (objective, non-changing, real, versimilar, whatever).

I think that this is leading to a theory where you can describe your particular Illusionism by what experience you are trying to impart. For shorthand you can first state the actual player decision making process, and then the illusionary state. So in the example above it would be Gam/Sim Illusionism. As opposed to what I described as Sim/Narr Illusionism.

This is interesting because it might lead to speculation about other forms of illusionism. Like Gam/Narr, or Narr/Sim. And potentially multiple outcome Illusioisms like Gam/Sim-Narr. Not that these are necessarily functional, achievable, or even desireable. But it might be interesting to look at them.

Like Gam/Narr Illusionism where the players play in a Gamist style, and the GM makes their decisions appear to create story. Very similar to Gam/Sim or Sim/Narr.

Mike

Mike