Quick questions on illusionism

[Callan S.]

A quick question or two on illusionism.

Okay, say our hero gets to a T intersection. One way looks like it goes to a dangerous forest, the other a graveyard.

The GM has it set so the next event on his sheet will happen either way.

Now, what if your goal here is something else? What if your goal is to explore the character through the choices he makes? So you find out whether he'd prefer to head toward a graveyard or forest. If that is the foremost goal (to GM and player), is it still illusionism? More to the point, if it is still illusionism, does it matter to that goal?

Okay, now remove that goal and go back to what goal you had before. Now say he has some fore knowledge of what's on either path and both things lead to different stuff. Going to either one will end up having significant effects elsewhere and to the other path.

Is this illusionism? I'm guessing not (if it is all bets are off for the next two questions).

But what significant difference did all those choices make? Was the main difference that all those choices showed us his character thoroughly?

[M. J. Young]

Callan--

I like to make a distinction between Illusionism and Illusionist Techniques. Once the distinction is recognized, most people accept that it is a valid distinction.

A good example of an illusionist technique would be Ron's "Moving Clue". If you're running a mystery and it is absolutely essential that the players get a particular clue in order to solve it, Ron says you don't put in the notes that they will get it if they ask character seven about subject E. You establish as part of the design that whoever they question and whatever they ask, this clue will come forward. You might have envisioned that the head of the house asked the butler for his briefcase, and so the butler saw him leaving with the briefcase; but if the players don't latch on to asking the butler about that, when they question the chauffer, the chauffer says, "I saw him headed toward the garage with his briefcase, and asked him if he wanted me to drive him somewhere, but he said he felt like driving himself."

That's an illusionist technique. It takes away the impact of player choice. In a different sort of game, failure to elicit from the butler the information that the head of house left with the briefcase would mean you could not solve the mystery because you did not have the critical clue. The Moving Clue uses illusion to ensure that the players get the clue.

I have argued elsewhere that exactly the kind of "illusionist technique" you are describing--in which the next event will happen on schedule regardless of which way the character turns--can be used to empower players as easily as to disempower them.

Illusionism as a referee style is essentially to entirely disempower the players by preventing them from having any impact on the shared imaginary space beyond such color as the referee integrates into the tale he is telling. Illusionist techniques involve negating the power of player choice, and may be appropriately and effectively used to prevent choices that shouldn't matter from derailing the fun while leaving the choices that should matter entirely in the hands of the players.

Does that help?

--M. J. Young

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Callan,

The problem with your question, for me, is that "explore the character through the choices he makes" is so vague as to encompass all of role-playing.

Also, Illusionism (or as M.J. rightly points out, an Illusionist Technique) isn't really about goals. It's about how different people's input has an impact on what happens in the game. So unless an example tells me who said what, what happened in the game-space, and how one person was able to manipulate all the input, then I'm not going to be able to tell whether Illusionism was at work or not.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

I think the question comes down to whether or not a player can have his own Creative Agenda separate from that of the overall group. I think the answer is yes, so that means that yes, the GM could be playing some Simulationist Illusionism, while the player treats this as backdrop and does "Narrativism Underneath".

Is that what you're getting at?

Mike

[Callan S.]

Heya all,

Mikes Holme's closest to what I was getting at but not quite. I appreciate the value of illusionism from MJ (I hope I didn't sound like I was against it) and the question from Ron (though it was less about whether illusionism was there and more about if you have goal X, would it matter (good or ill) if it was there).

It was an approach question on something I've been wondering about lately. As to whether the typical design of RPG is good for anything but exploring character, any other goals don't so much do, except a reflection of it. Please take the following as personal hypothesis of mine, which isn't supported by any articles (ie, this is what I think, rather than I've read a ton and this is what I think after that). It'll probably come off as ill informed and I'm aware of it. :) Feel free to skip it if it seems unhealthily so.

Anyway, suppose simulationism isn't achievable because of abstraction requirements and or unlimmited resources. And suppose gamism isn't achievable because of unlimmited resources in game. Unlimmited resources are those that are created with a word from someone, or even assumption.

However, perhaps the reason they seem achievable is clearer when the hobby goals are framed differently.

* To express character through choice
* To live character through deciding their choices (gawd, 'too live character', I'm pretty ambiguous here)
* To formularise choices somewhat, to better understand choices made in terms of the above.

The last point suggests game and simulation are there to be had. But if someone plays it as a game despite everything, their game like choices still reflect some sort of character. While attempting to exploring the simulation means making choices to see what happens, which is basically living the characters choices.

Again, I'll say that I can imagine this could just be a pile of rough guts thoughts to anyone but me, so don't wear down your keyboards if its annoying, too ill informed, etc :)

Basically I'm sounding it here because one can still get good comments that expand ones thoughts on the subject from people, even when it doesn't sit right with them.

But I will say in it's defence, it's the first way I've thought of describing a roleplay game to outsiders that I feel isn't incomplete, cliche or painful to describe. And personally, the hobby has begun to make more sense to me in light of it.

[Doctor Xero]

Okay, say our hero gets to a T intersection. One way looks like it goes to a dangerous forest, the other a graveyard.

The GM has it set so the next event on his sheet will happen either way.

Now, what if your goal here is something else? What if your goal is to explore the character through the choices he makes? So you find out whether he'd prefer to head toward a graveyard or forest.

Another spice to throw into the cauldron on this question :

Is the setting mere description or is the setting a 'character' in the game?

In my campaigns, setting is always important enough that it is in some ways another character (just as much an 'object' as an NPC or a player's character, to use object oriented programming as a metaphor).  In such a case, even if the same event occurs either way, it will be colored by whether it occurs within a dark, foreboding forest or an eerie (or strangely pleasant) graveyard.  So the character's choice makes a difference in the flavor of the encounter.

If I feel that giving the players an enjoyable storyline requires that they get the clue, "bluepainted gold is invisible to the opaque drake", then, yes, some NPC will give it to them, but which NPC they turn to for the clue will determine the cost of getting the clue (usually they only get half a clue unless they pursue it), any incidental side effects, and whether they get any extra clues as bonuses.  For example, the butler might require seduction before he reveals which color of paint is invisible, or the maid might request a quest to help her pregnant brother, or the groundskeeper might "accidentally" leave with someone's wallet while giving them the clue.

And players do have a right to completely mess up and miss vital clues, I think, so if they are determined not to follow up on the partial clues, I let their characters suffer the consequences.  This has often resulted in a de facto hierarchy with interactive roleplayers on top and clueless munchkins at the bottom of the campaign food chain.  (I actually had one notorious powergamer ask me to please include his character in its own roleplay subplot after all because, as he put it, he was tired of all the other players, who roleplayed and invoked subplots from the campaign world, "getting all the good stuff"!)

I also have pre-determined some such encounters based on player requests: if Bill wants his warrior to encounter the ghost of her dead son and Marjica wants her thief to someone end up challenged about his gender prejudices, Bill's warrior will encounter the ghost and Marjica's thief the cursed gender switch item regardless of which one goes down the forest path and which one goes through the graveyard.  To have Marjica's thief encounter Bill's warrior's ghost just because Bill chose the wrong path does nothing for Bill's explorations of his character!

On the other hand, in some campaigns, setting is merely window dressing.  In those campaigns, until I left them in boredom, I just ignored the setting altogether, because what makes no difference is no difference . . .

Doctor Xero