Over in Jay's Point of Clarification Concerning Illusionism thread

I wrote: Not all illusionist techniques are necessarily "force" in that the[y] invalidate player choices. Some are used precisely to enhance player choice.

Objecting, Vincent wrote: M.J.? Those aren't illusionist techniques. The "illusion" in Illusionism is the illusion that the players have a choice.

Then Ron wrote: I agree with Vincent.

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

Hi MJ,

I like the bomb example because it illustrates something that I think is real important--I understand what you're saying--and I think it's a solid module design (better than many of mine which've dipped into that territory): the illusionism doesn't take away the legitimate go-either-way choices you've set up within your context.

But I don't think there's an important issue here:

If the players had expectations of a Virtuality-style game you may find that they do find the game Illusionist--and counter to their "player agendum."

I don't think that pointing out that Virtuality isn't a listed CA is gonna help much with those guys--and I think this makes a strong case why defining Illusionism or Force or whatever in terms of Creative Agenda has some distance to go before being easily applicable.

-Marco

It seems to me that Moving Clue is only force in the sense of forcing a card in a magic trick. I wouldn't see this as a "thematically-significant" decision, so I don't see it as force in the Glossary sense.

Isn't the issue really what kind of choices are forced?

Hmm. What if the group of players going into that bomb scenario module was given the setup, and immediately went into planning mode (either literally, or in a 'meta' sense as in "our characters are experienced at this sort of thing, how would they go about this?").

They spend the first part of the session discussing what they know about these terrorists, about the building, what kind of resources they have access to and what they could get past building security and determine that the only really good option for these terrorists to have the bomb be a real threat is if it's in the basement; otherwise it can't do enough damage to be a serious threat to the building/hostages/whatever.

They then build their plan of attack around that, and are pissed and disappointed when the bomb is in the penthouse.

[Edit: I just caught that your scenario posits a nuclear bomb, which makes the "where it is" less relevant to how much damage it does. I think my point is still clear, though.]

------
I may be way off-base here, but I think the primary difference between an illusionist technique (as I understand it: "a technique that renders player choice in this singular instance irrelevant") and illusionism in it's negative sense (as I understand it: "play that renders significant player choice in this singular instance irrelevant") is not so much a matter of CA conflict, but more inherently a breakdown in System or social contract: Player X is ignoring (SC) or unaware (System) of Player Y's desired outcome. Communication is not.

James

I'm not entirel;y happy with labelling these illusionist techniques myself. I'd certainly agree that these tricks are used in Illusionism, but not so sure they should share that specific title.

What I think this idea raises is what appears to me to be an inherent limitation of a 'virtuality' style of play, which is that it is impossible to prepare for everything. I think this is what usually kills virtuality-type games, the degree of effort, much of it necessarily wasted, that the GM must invest to realise the world, is exhausting. Therefore, it is common for such games to employ some structural device such as "an exciting adventure" just in order to provide some focus for the creative effort.

The moving clue may well be used for this purpose. Anyway, I see these devices as being broader than illusionism or virtuality.

The distinction may lie between the GM affecting resolution (1) to promote agenda-relevant opportunities and (2) to advance a pre-conceived, agenda-rich plot. To be pedantic per the provisional glossary, Illusionism is, in all cases, an application of Force. Force, by definition, pertains to thematically relevant character choices. I conclude that the first variety, above, cannot be Illusionism, though it shares the quality of resolution affectation not recognized by the player.

Thanks for the responses.

I've been distinguishing "Illusionist Techniques" from "Illusionism" in very much this way probably for three years (my Game Ideas Unlimited: Left or Right which referenced both of these examples was published 9/28/01; Game Ideas Unlimited: Ephemeral Illusion, in which I observed that an illusionist game design would be untenable, appeared 9/13/02, and cited articles promoting illusionist techniques as far back as Game Ideas Unlimited: Invisible Coins, 7/27/01; I'm not certain when the terms were first used or by whom). Nearly all referees use techniques which vacate the impact of player choices in some way at some point. If that is done consistently to prevent the players from having input meaningful to the player in favor of bringing about the referee's desired outcomes, it's illusionism. The same techniques can be used to a lesser degree, and if used well can enhance the player experience. They are still the same techniques, and they still work by vacating the impact of player choices when the referee decides that the outcome of that choice would be problematic for the game.

Secretly fudging die rolls is an illusionist technique. The players believe that the dice have determined their success (or their failure), when actually it was the referee's decision that made the difference. I could probably create a dictionary of illusionist techniques. Some of them are nearly always detrimental to player pursuit of agendum no matter how they're used; some very much depend on which agendum is being pursued and how the technique is applied; some nearly always enhance play if used appropriately.

I should mention concerning the glossary definition of "force" that it has been officially recognized as a misprint. It should read something like "agendum-relevant decision" and not "thematically-significant decision". I have also stated that illusionist techniques and force are overlapping but not coterminous sets--there are some of each that are not the other. I don't claim the Moving Clue is "force"; I claim it is "an illusionist technique"--a method of vacating the impact of player choice.

Looking at the Moving Clue specifically, it's clear that the intended function of the moving clue is to put the clue where the players will find it. It could be used exactly the opposite way--a referee who does not want the players to find the answer might decide that the only character who has that information is the one they did not question. That's the same illusionist technique, this time applied to frustrate their objectives. It is clearly an illusionist technique; the normal application of it enhances player empowerment by making it seem they made the right choices when in fact their choices in this particular did not matter. They would have gotten that clue no matter who they asked.

Illusionism is the persistent but use unrecognized by the other players of illusionist techniques including covert force (overt force is not an illusionist technique, because it is apparent to the players) to advance the referee's intended outcome for the game over that of the players.

Does that clarify my meaning?

--M. J. Young

M. J. Young wrote: I should mention concerning the glossary definition of "force" that it has been officially recognized as a misprint. It should read something like "agendum-relevant decision" and not "thematically-significant decision".

All right. Here's my most troubling illusionist moment.

In high school, late, I was running a game for a group of people I rather liked and didn't know all that well - one player was the bf of a player from my old group that she wanted to impress, and they were pretty cool.

So they were moving through my dungeon, and hit the Big Bad. He was a wizard, and conjured up some serious magic.

I really laid it on heavy with the description of the whirlwinds, the mana-storm, the whole nine yards.

And then one player called out: "I disbelieve!"

I just stared at the group for a second. I had worked on this encouter a while, you see, but he was right. I had hammed it up too much in my description.

So I said: "roll a d20."

And he rolled like an 18 or something.

So I changed the whole thing so the guy was a weaselly illusionist. The disbelieve was 'successful', you see. And the party got through the 'hellish final encounter' as mostly a diplomacy-type thing; the disbelieve roll effectively ended combat.

Even though I had written the thing up as a nasty high level wizard.

The fact was, the guy had caught me: my ham factor was a little too high. So he wins the encounter, even though it was supposed to be a bad-ass evil mage.

So sue me.

The irony of that is not lost upon me.

M.J., I pretty much think I understand. However, I must say that there are poblems when a player does something that you didn't think of.

Oftentimes they'll completely disarm your scenerio (use intimidate instead of fighting, attempt to disbelieve, etc.) and illusionism techniques may or may not be appropriate. It can be a good thing or bad thing.

Whether it constitutes force or not is something I don't have enough authority to comment on.

May the wind be always at your back,
-Pyron

Eric J. wrote: However, I must say that there are poblems when a player does something that you didn't think of.

Oftentimes they'll completely disarm your scenerio (use intimidate instead of fighting, attempt to disbelieve, etc.) and illusionism techniques may or may not be appropriate. It can be a good thing or bad thing.

I think that a common pit that illusionism faulters is at the break of trust with the players. I'm sure that there's some good terminology for that.

I'll go back to my intimidate skill. Say they spend some drama points (or whatever) making their intimidate check on the awesome bad guy. The skill says that it works on all people in all scenerios, not just interogations and stuff.

They make a really awesome roll and your villain faulters.

You don't want your villain to be screwed by one good roll. But the player invested a lot in that roll. (S)he did it with good sense and no reason to believe that they had no chance.

Contrast that to your Nuke scenerio. The players know that if their GM isn't lazy or whatnot, the GM is going to send you through a building full of terrorists and no matter what your roll there's going to be an adventure waiting for you there.

One way I try to salvage the game when I use the illusionism cop-out, is to tell the players. I'll give them their XP for defeating the enemy and I'll put the villain I wanted there further into the story. I tell them that it's for the sake of convention, and if it flies it flies. If it doesn't, I can call it a submarine.

I'd go so far as to say that some form of illusionism is inherent to social contract. I'm not talking about force. I'm talking about illusionism.

Anyway, I'm not going to defend that to the death. Call it a suposition.

Thanks for clarifying your idea of illusionism and techniques thereof, M.J.

May the wind be always at your back,
-Pyron

Hey M. J.,

I have a question that I would like to posit –

If there is no indication, from the players’ perspective, of what is likely to be found (the terrorists or the person with the clue) why is changing the location of either “encounter” illusory?

While the players are making their best efforts to attempt something (avoid the terrorist, get the important clue), as they have no firm information, they have no reasonable or absolute expectation that their efforts will bear the fruit they seek. IOW players have the right to choose – and that is where the notion of deprotagonizing force comes in – but the players do not have the power of self-determination. Just because they are trying to do something means that they have the right to expect to succeed. Just because the players are trying to avoid the terrorists, as long as they have no hard intel on their position, means that they will succeed in avoiding the terrorists. The GM has not vacated their choices in this example because there was no success/failure to vacate. The players tried, it was not indicated whether or not they had reason to believe they were successful or even had good evidentiary reason to expect events to unfold as they hoped.

If however the means of negotiation indicated player success/failure then changing that outcome without player knowledge is illusionism. Why? Because they had succeeded/failed, but their success/failure was both kept from them and the SIS. The knowledge of their success/failure was withheld. The altered outcome is an illusion masking the “reality” of the outcome.

The floating terrorists or the floating clue, as long as the players have no prior knowledge as to their place in the “reality of the SIS”, can appear anywhere without that process implying the altering of “reality”. Let me put it this way, is this process any different than a player plunking down a coin in Universalis to “locate” the terrorists or the clue in front of the player characters? As long as the ramifications of either event would not have been felt at some earlier time where the players would have some information about them, then moving the terrorists or the clue around does not require any subterfuge or altering of a preordained “reality” that subsequently requires “illusions” to cover up.

I’m not sure that those actions are “illusionary” techniques as much as they are a subset of or a form of scene framing.

The primary assumption that I am making in my argument is that the only “reality” that is important/relevant is that of the SIS. There are some subtleties involved with this point of view here. For the sake of this argument, just because the SIS is the only “reality” that is important does not mean just because something has not been formally introduced into the SIS does not mean it has not effect on the SIS. Like a planet that has not been directly observed (has not been formally introduced into the SIS and established as “real”), its effects can be seen/felt in the orbital perturbations of the other planets (effects that reach into the established SIS that are “real”). Back to the examples. If the players would not have “felt” the existence of the terrorists or the clue prior to their choices the moving such items would not be illusionary.

Maybe I am just splitting hairs and this distinction really isn’t worth exploring. It just strikes me that “illusionism” with its deprotagonzing of player choices could very easily be confused with “illusionist techniques” which do not deprotagonize player choices. Perhaps I spend too much time naval gazing?

Silmenume wrote: Hey M. J.,

I have a question that I would like to posit –

If there is no indication, from the players’ perspective, of what is likely to be found (the terrorists or the person with the clue) why is changing the location of either “encounter” illusory?

Marco's right. Jay, maybe I can illumine this another way.

In real life, if you're investigating the mystery, it's not likely to be set up such that exactly one person knows what you need to solve it; it could be that no one knows, or that several people know. It's also unlikely that you're going to know what it is you need to know, nor even recognize it when you hear it. However, if you do, you'll think you were either very clever or very lucky to have unearthed that absolutely essential clue that solved the entire thing.

If you're expecting the game to be like a real mystery, then you're expecting that there are pieces of information out there that you have to unearth if you're going to solve it. We've all seen mysteries on television and probably read them in books, and those impact our expectations. Someone knows those critical bits of information, and we've got to find them.

Now, just as in real life, if in the game we find those bits of information and we're expecting that this is like a real mystery, we're going to think we were either very clever or very lucky to have found them. Just think how difficult it would have been to solve this crime if we hadn't asked the maid that question! It turned out to be the key to the whole thing! And so we're patting ourselves on the back for having been so whatever we were to have gotten that information.

The problem here is the one that plagues so many Call of Cthulu games, or so I've heard. If you failed your research roll, you didn't learn what you needed to know, and the game went down in flames. In this case, if in fact the clue was with the chauffer and you never questioned the chauffer, you've got an insoluble case. Give it up now; you missed it.

The illusion of the moving clue is that the clue gets to you through whomever you happened to question. You were guaranteed to get the critical clue. Of course, you didn't know that, and you probably didn't know it was the critical clue when you got it. Once you realized what you had, though, you were probably congratulating yourself for getting it.

Of course, what matters in the mystery is really whether given the clues you can solve the mystery. Collecting the clues shouldn't be the challenge. Therefore, in taking away the possibility that you might not get that vital clue I validate your game experience, because I facilitate your ability to solve the mystery from the clues. But I did it by making your choices of who to question and what to ask less important, guaranteeing that you couldn't go wrong in that part of play, through an illusionist technique. I made it seem as if the maid were the only person who knew what you needed to know, and that you were so clever to have asked her, when in fact what mattered critically from my perspective was that exactly one character gave you that vital piece of the puzzle, and not that the maid was the one who had it.

In the case of the terrorists, various players have either congratulated themselves on how quickly they managed to find the bomb or cursed their rotten luck that no matter which way they went they kept running into more terrorists none of whom knew where the bomb was. They had no idea that play was designed to take them through the encounters in sequence and so lead them to the bomb. From the perspective of the player, he believes that the bomb is in a fixed place and he has to find it. From the perspective of the character that's true. Once the referee knows where the bomb is, that's where it always was. However, there was no way for the character to get that information sooner because in the real world it didn't exist sooner. Had the character read the mind of every terrorist he encountered, not one of them would have known where the bomb was until he was close enough that going directly to it would take him through the remaining encounters. Had he brought some sort of Geiger counter, he could not have tracked the bomb. There is only one way to get to the bomb, and that's to follow the path--not through the right rooms, but through the right encounters.

So the player thinks when he enters the snack bar and finds two terrorists guarding ten hostages that this is where the hostages were always held. That's the reality for the character; it's an illusion for the player. The hostages were always there from the character's perspective, but from the player's perspective they just appeared a moment ago when the previous encounter was resolved and the referee saw where the player character was headed so he could set this up in his path.

A lot of no-myth play is illusionist technique in this sense, I expect (not all of it, though).

Does that clarify it?

--M. J. Young

Hey M. J. and Marco,

I apologize for the tardiness of this reply, but I seem to have hit a brick wall, endurance wise, with reference to posting.

I had started a reply several times, but I finally discovered that a major stumbling block I was experiencing lie in that we were talking past each other. Let me start by defining my thoughts so we at least have a common reference.

The Shared Imaginary Space is the functional “reality” of the game. Cause and Effect are always in operation unless specifically stated to the contrary. Even when C&E are allowed to be violated, there is almost always a systematized governing limit to how often that can happen, e.g., coins. It would be impossible to have a functioning or effectively realized Creative Agenda without Cause and Effect. Without a solid Cause and Effect process you could have Victory before Challenge, Theme before Premise, The Dream before player action – Characters could die before they were born, sword blows could kill before they were swung - time would have no meaning. The laws of physics in a fictional setting may be different from out own, but C&E cannot be absent. WE as human beings cannot function without solid C&E.

Until “something” is validated into or that “something” has an effect upon something within the SIS then that “something,” for all intents and purposes, does not exist. IOW if “something” neither presents direct evidence of its existence (it is placed into the SIS by overt player action) to the players, nor presents indirect evidence of it existence within the SIS to the players – then as far as the players are concerned it does not (yet) exist. This is the cornerstone to my argument and I will spend a little more time on this idea.

Imagine all as yet unrealized elements of Exploration as residing in Schrödinger’s box. Until any scintilla of information or effect is transmitted past the confines of the box to the outside world (the observer – in this case this would be the player who is either directly communicated to or the player who is picking up information from the information that has been entered into the SIS) then absolutely nothing can be said about what’s inside the box (that which has not yet been realized/come to pass).

Let us continue with this analogy and assume that we as the DM have placed a magnet inside the box. The players have no knowledge of what the DM has placed in there, but now certain things are starting to happen. A compass placed near the box turns as if a magnetic field was emanating from within the box. Iron filings move and cling to the box as well. How does this relate to the topic at hand?

Regarding the SIS, when the players do not have direct knowledge of something, either due to direct communication to the players (DM to player) or via the introduction of that fact into the SIS (DM to Player via Character) then there are four possible cases presuming that the box is opened at some point –

• There is a magnet in the box (the DM placed it there – though the players do not know that fact) and its effects are demonstrated (by the DM) outside the box. In this example we say suppose that a compass is near the box and reacts by changing its direction or that iron filings are near and move and cling to the outside of the box – IOW an unknown object is having a direct and knowable/observable effect upon the SIS. While the players have no direct knowledge of the magnet they may abduce that there is something in the box, they may also abduce that that something is the cause of the demonstrated magnetic field and they may even abduce that that something could be a magnet – depending, say, on the data the iron filings yielded. Cause and Effect are conserved which allows for the players to make a reasonable abduction (case – there is a magnet that the players haven’t found yet) which can then be further tested – by projecting certain results when certain actions are tried and tested – deduction. Upon opening the box the players see the magnet and their abductions are proven correct. No Illusionist Techniques.• There is no magnet within the box (the DM specifically did not place one into the box) and no effects are demonstrated outside the box. The players open the box and find no magnet within which supports the lack of demonstrated (by the DM) evidence of any magnetic effect. C&E are conserved. No Illusionist Techniques.• There is a magnet in the box (the DM placed it there) but its effects are not demonstrated (by the DM) outside the box (no effects are demonstrated upon the SIS by the DM). The players open the box and see the magnet within but were utterly unaware of any demonstrated evidence of its existence prior to its revelation. This would be equivalent to M.J.’s example of the anti-terrorist team employing Geiger counters and not finding any traces of the nuclear device. Here we have C&E breaking. This is GM employment Force. Here is where we have an example of Illusionist Techniques.• There is no magnet within the box (the DM specifically did not place one into the box) but magnetic effects are demonstrated (by the GM) outside the box (effects are demonstrated upon the SIS by the DM). The players open the box and find no magnet or any means of creating a magnetic field that was demonstrated (by the DM) outside the box (an effect demonstrated within the SIS). This could be seen in the example given by Marco whereby the DM will always change the position of the bomb based upon the player abductions. Again we have C&E breaking. Again we have GM employment of Force.

How does this relate to illusionist techniques and roleplay?

If there is no evidence (direct or indirect) to the existence of something to the players, (cases 1 and 2) then there can be no illusionist techniques under these circumstances. There is no truth that is being obscured. If there is false evidence (either a false positive or a false negative – cases 3 and 4) then such evidence are examples of GM Force which match both examples of Illusionist Techniques given. IOW Illusionist Techniques are really a type of Force.

GM intentions cannot be invoked when defining the term Illusionist Technique. (Much in the same way that CA cannot be defined by player intentions or motives, but rather by player actualizations) It is impossible for the players or anyone to know the GM’s intentions; all that is available to the players and/or those trying to diagnose is that which has been realized/actualized (direct or indirect evidence demonstrated to the players).

It is this thought process that led me to conclude that Illusionist Techniques is merely a type of Force. IOW as long as there is evidence already in existence to alter then there can be no illusion, conversely if there is evidence that is being altered then that is Force.

I hope that I have made my assumptions clear enough that they can be addressed without confusion.

Jay, it seems to me that you're talking about "no myth" play: nothing that has not yet entered the shared imagined space in a way known to the players is in any way part of it.

I agree that this is a legitimate way to play; but I also maintain that it is not the only way to play.

If, for example, we agree that you're going to run Keep on the Borderland, we have all agreed, including you, that the contents of that module are definitive of the shared imagined space in terms of people, places, encounters, and other aspects covered thereby. None of us know what is contained in that book except you; but we've agreed that it's part of the shared imagined space outside our knowledge.

It is now a functional part of the social contract that you, as referee, are obliged to follow that module as accurately as you are able, and we are obliged to accept your statement concerning what the module says is the reality. Were you to decide to do something different, it would be a breach of that social contract.

I rarely play from modules; I usually design my own. However, my players expect to a significant degree that I have designed things, and am following my design. I could make it all up on the spot (and have done so); but it is more likely that I have some notes that contain what I believe is in the shared imagined space.

This gets tricky. My players don't know what's in my notes. However, they are expecting that I'm going to run the game according to whatever is there. That means that they believe there are "real" things in the shared imagined space that exist outside their knowledge, and that have not impacted them in any way at this point.

If we look at the moving clue, we have an excellent example of the problem with your cause and effect analysis.

The way to write a mystery as a book, I am persuaded, is to begin by working out in your own mind who killed whom, how, when, where, and why, and then working backwards to figure out what had to happen for them to have done that, and what clues must exist because of it. By sheer cause and effect, if you use that approach, the clues are fixed. If only one person saw the master leave the house at three o'clock, that person saw it because that person was in the right place at the right time.

That means in the nature of the beast, the mystery assumes that certain events happened in a very specific way, but that those events are unknown to the players. The entire point of the adventure is to work backwards to determine what happened in the shared imagined space before they began their investigation--there are real events that have had an impact on the present, even though they weren't played. We've established 1) that one and only one member of the household saw the master leave and 2) that the players must have that information in order to solve the mystery and 3) we don't want to tell them that this is the vital clue, we just want to quietly make certain they get it.

All of the players' assumptions about this world say that the past is fixed. Any suggestion that the referee is still writing the past to fit what happens in the present would violate cause and effect egregiously. Yet the past is not fixed; we do not know who saw the master leave until the players ask the right questions. Then suddenly it becomes the case that this particular person gives that information, and is the only one who knows it.

From the perspective of the players, it would still seem that this must have been in the notes. That is, they would assume that somewhere it was written "the maid saw the master leave the house at three o'clock", and that they got lucky and asked her this. To them, the past history of the shared imagined space is fixed. However, what the notes say is that the history is not fixed, but is to be formed in response to player choices in order to facilitate the solving of the mystery. The players think they got the information because they asked the maid, when in fact it was inevitable that they would get that information, and the maid was the one who knew it because she was the one they asked.

How is this force? The referee did not at any time control what the player characters did--the players were free to do whatever they wished. The referee did not at any time cause the actions of the players to be ineffective--quite the contrary, the referee caused the actions to be more effective. Yet at the same time, the referee took advantage of his credibility to manipulate the players' perceptions of the in-game reality. They believed that the maid having the clue was written in the referee's notes, because that's how these things are done. They had agreed that whatever was written in the referee's notes (or fixed in his mind) was already part of the in-game reality outside their knowledge. They are fooled into thinking that this is exactly as it was planned.

Years ago we invited my parents to dinner. My wife made a crockpot full of meatballs. When my father spooned them onto a roll, he commented that it was very clever of her to have made small meatballs that wouldn't fall off the roll so easily. She confessed that she had made large meatballs, and for some reason she had not yet fathomed they had all broken apart while cooking. He told her she should never say that; she should have said, "I'm glad you like them", and taken full credit for the compliment despite the fact that it was a mistake.

Illusionist techniques are like that: as referee I pretend that this is exactly as I'd always planned it to happen, and that you walked into it perfectly. You're deceived. I had no such plan. I'm just good enough that I can create the illusion that I did.

Does that help?

--M. J. Young

Jay wrote: Imagine all as yet unrealized elements of Exploration as residing in Schrödinger’s box. Until any scintilla of information or effect is transmitted past the confines of the box to the outside world (the observer – in this case this would be the player who is either directly communicated to or the player who is picking up information from the information that has been entered into the SIS) then absolutely nothing can be said about what’s inside the box (that which has not yet been realized/come to pass).

M. J. Young wrote:

Illusionist techniques are like that: as referee I pretend that this is exactly as I'd always planned it to happen, and that you walked into it perfectly. You're deceived. I had no such plan. I'm just good enough that I can create the illusion that I did.

Does that help?

--M. J. Young

Jay,

I find myself in agreement with MJ. I think that data that is not in the SiS still "exists" in a sense from some perspectives (i.e. if it's in the GM's head that there is a magnet in the box then it is reasonable to say it "exists" even though the players haven't discovered it and the magnet isn't in the SiS).

It's also reasonable to say it doesn't exist--both are valid perspectives--but what's useful is to find out which one gets you further. And that, IMO, depends on where you want to go.

-Marco