Since I started this,

Le Joueur wrote: What about the above: "using any illusion to cause the players to believe they caused a story, when they have not."? No subcategories, no planning implied, no dysfunctional language, clear and right to the point. Does it work for you, and if not, how 'bout let's start another thread on it?

Le Joueur wrote:

Steve Dustin wrote: When I see the term Illusionism, I see it as meaning total GM control over the story (which is not depend on when a story is planned or whatever the ultimate result of that play will be). To me, that's what is important about using that term. It doesn't take much to add a caveat (with or without player approval), but it does take a lot to redefine many narrow terms over and over, in relation to one another.

Only one problem, where are the illusions?

In an excerpt of the original article, Mithras wrote: I [was] wondering, however, about narrativism in general, refereeing a great story, and I've sort of come to the conclusion that a great referee is a great illusionist.

I prepare the bare bones of a dramatic plot and we start gaming. If the players start screwing around and avoiding my plot I don't often indulge them and create an entire new plot on the fly. I twist, I deceive, I back-track and lie - I create the illusion that what they're doing is all part of the plot, and *wrap the plot around them*. All referees do it. They have to.

So what I try to do in advance is to create this illusion of total free choice in advance of the campaign. In a scenario, I work hard to pull, push and cajole the players into reaching the goal of the plot, but this is often an easy task.

Harder, is to give the players the feeling that they are forging ahead through their character's lives in any direction they choose. Most referees (myself included) present and play one scenario after another in a linear fashion. The players go along with the scenario and play to its conclusion.

[Personal example edited.]

The illusion of freedom.

Ron Edwards wrote: Vanilla Narrativism
Dramatism as Vanilla Narrativism
Abashed Vanillaism
Intuitive Continuity

Wow, that was a thick post.

Quick question, Fang (I don't know why I didn't think of this earlier), if you go see a stage magician perform tricks, don't you usually know they are illusions to begin with? If you know, do they cease to be illusions?

Why is it you don't have to know its an illusion in roleplaying for it to be one?

I still stick with my general statement: same techniques, same result, same thing. I don't think the issue of player complicity is important.

Frankly, when you say that when a game will end differently, although its played the same way, I have to take your word for it without some evidence. I think you are trying to find a way to wrap up satisfaction with a technique and I don't think that's a good idea.

Now, I'll let the experts define illusionism. I just don't think its useful if it describes something that is similar, with the caveat the players are being lied to. That's a communication problem, and should be separated from the issue of roleplaying technique.

Steve

Steve Dustin wrote: Wow, that was a thick post.

Steve Dustin wrote: Quick question, Fang (I don't know why I didn't think of this earlier), if you go see a stage magician perform tricks, don't you usually know they are illusions to begin with? If you know, do they cease to be illusions?

Steve Dustin wrote: I still stick with my general statement: same techniques, same result, same thing. I don't think the issue of player complicity is important.

Steve Dustin wrote: Frankly, when you say that when a game will end differently, although it's played the same way, I have to take your word for it without some evidence. I think you are trying to find a way to wrap up satisfaction with a technique and I don't think that's a good idea.

Hey,

I call for a settle-down. It's time for all of us to check out old Illusionism threads, to get up to the same speed about what's been said and what hasn't, and to avoid getting hung up on what exactly that guy just said that isn't exactly what you just said.

As was made clear in another thread, the Illusionism definition needs to be clarified anyway. It seems to me, at this point, that we are working with a sensu lato vs. sensu stricto situation. It also seems to me that we need to distinguish very carefully between deception and illusion, as well as functional vs. dysfunctional; none of these pairs are synonyms.

But most importantly, take a break. Take TWO breaks. Fang, remember that Steve is new to the Forge and still feeling out how we deal with things. Steve, be sensitive to when a person does not receive the acknowledgment they need that they are being heard.

Best,
Ron

I don't think any of my players harbor any mistaken beliefs about the locus of authorial power in my games. Hell, a few weeks ago (after I'd just read Ron's essays and some of the more interesting old threads here), I came out and told my players that I was in charge of the plot, and none of them argued or even looked askance.

I've always identified myself as Illusionist, because the majority of my GMing effort is aimed at preserving the appearance that PC actions have a major impact on the plot, when in fact most of the plot decisions are mine alone. (I say "most" because I often let player decisions create new subplots, if the direction that the player is exploring seems interesting to me but isn't part of the existing plot; once a subplot has been created, however, I am firmly in control of where it goes.)

No one's lying to anyone, though.

So, Fang, tell me this: if I'm not an Illusionist GM, what am I?

(And don't tell me I'm a Vanilla Narrativist. My players aren't creating the plot, except by accident.)

{edited to insert my real name, which is Seth L. Blumberg, in accordance with policy}

I think Metal has good points. To generalize: the main purpose of all the illusions in my illusionary practices is not to deceive players into thinking something is true; it's to avoid unnecessarily reminding them that it isn't. That's a big difference.

- Walt

Metal Fatigue wrote: I don't think any of my players harbor any mistaken beliefs about the locus of authorial power in my games. Hell, a few weeks ago (after I'd just read Ron's essays and some of the more interesting old threads here), I came out and told my players that I was in charge of the plot, and none of them argued or even looked askance.

Metal Fatigue wrote: I've always identified myself as Illusionist, because the majority of my GMing effort is aimed at preserving the appearance that PC actions have a major impact on the plot,

Metal Fatigue wrote: when in fact most of the plot decisions are mine alone. (I say "most" because I often let player decisions create new subplots, if the direction that the player is exploring seems interesting to me but isn't part of the existing plot; once a subplot has been created, however, I am firmly in control of where it goes.)

Metal Fatigue wrote: No one's lying to anyone, though.

So, Fang, tell me this: if I'm not an Illusionist GM, what am I?

Metal Fatigue wrote: (And don't tell me I'm a Vanilla Narrativist. My players aren't creating the plot, except by accident.)

wfreitag wrote: I think Metal has good points. To generalize: the main purpose of all the illusions in my illusionary practices is not to deceive players into thinking something is true; it's to avoid unnecessarily reminding them that it isn't. That's a big difference.

Well I can't be sure Fang, but it seems to me that you are clouding the definition of Narrativism greatly in your quest to define illusionist play.

If the players are not participating in the creation of the story. If THEY (not solely the GM) are not making decisions based on focusing the plot on the Premise. Then it is NOT Narrativism.

There is nothing I see in Seth's description of play that I'd remotely tie to Narrativism. GM controling everything is not, and can not be Narrativist.

The definition of Illusionism to me is simple. If the players believe that the plot is evolving because of their own actions, but actually their actions are being subtly and cunningly redirected back to the plot envisioned by the GM (at least the main branches of it) then it is Illusionist play.

I'm really failing to see how this debate can contine on and on. Is there an illusion of free will or not? If the players KNOW they have no free will then there is no illusion and its not illusionist. If the players actually HAVE free will then there is no illusion and its not illusionist. I really think this discussion is making the issue far more complex then it needs to be.

Valamir wrote: If the players are not participating in the creation of the story. If THEY (not solely the GM) are not making decisions based on focusing the plot on the Premise. Then it is NOT Narrativism.

Valamir wrote: There is nothing I see in Seth's description of play that I'd remotely tie to Narrativism.

Valamir wrote: GM controlling everything is not, and can not be Narrativist.

Valamir wrote: The definition of Illusionism to me is simple. If the players believe that the plot is evolving because of their own actions, but actually their actions are being subtly and cunningly redirected back to the plot envisioned by the GM (at least the main branches of it) then it is Illusionist play.

Valamir wrote: I'm really failing to see how this debate can contine on and on. Is there an illusion of free will or not? If the players KNOW they have no free will then there is no illusion and its not Illusionist. If the players actually HAVE free will then there is no illusion and its not Illusionist. I really think this discussion is making the issue far more complex then it needs to be.

Valamir wrote: wrote:
If the players are not participating in the creation of the story. If THEY (not solely the GM) are not making decisions based on focusing the plot on the Premise. Then it is NOT Narrativism.

I don't believe participation in story creation is required by Narrativism. I think the minimum requirement is making decisions 'for story's sake.' I think it's unfairly limiting to say that Narrativism compels everyone present to participate in story creation. I think that flies in the face of Ron's statement that you can stay squarely in Actor stance (my-guy mode) most of the time and still be Narrativist. My understanding of 'vanilla Narrativism' is that the players 'stay away' from this direct participation, but still place importance on story-intent, whether they participate or not.

Valamir wrote:

Le Joueur wrote:

Valamir wrote: wrote: If the players are not participating in the creation of the story. If THEY (not solely the GM) are not making decisions based on focusing the plot on the Premise. Then it is NOT Narrativism.

I don't believe participation in story creation is required by Narrativism. I think the minimum requirement is making decisions 'for story's sake.'
[Snip.]
My understanding of 'vanilla Narrativism' is that the players 'stay away' from this direct participation, but still place importance on story-intent, whether they participate or not.

I think perhaps you are linking "participating in the creation of story" as requiring Author Stance in an unwarranted manner. It is entirely possible to participate in the creation of story and remain completely in Actor Stance

But limiting a player's stance to Actor alone, does not prohibit him from participating in the creation of story. Narrativist play requires that the player make decisions that focus the events on the Premise. Stances merely determine the scope of game elements over which the player has this decision making power.

So. Participation in creating the story IS required by Narrativism. It is also NOT prevented by Actor Stance.

Hi Fang,


IMO Illusionism is when the GM tells the players their decisions will have an impact on the game when in fact they don't. The player then have the illusion of participateing in the creation of a story (trough actor stance or via author/director stance is another debate : witch tools work best for the group, its playing style, etc.)

I think there's something in what Seth said that showthat he is not practicing Illusionism:

Seth wrote:

I don't think any of my players harbor any mistaken beliefs about the locus of authorial power in my games.

No one's lying to anyone, though.

... my GMing effort is aimed at preserving the appearance that PC actions have a major impact on the plot, when in fact most of the plot decisions are mine alone.

Le Joueur wrote:

wfreitag wrote: I think Metal has good points. To generalize: the main purpose of all the illusions in my illusionary practices is not to deceive players into thinking something is true; it's to avoid unnecessarily reminding them that it isn't. That's a big difference.

I am highly dubious about trying to find any difference between not "unnecessarily reminding" and 'deceiving.' Unless you explain it more, these two practices sound completely identical except in the former you are deceiving yourself as well.

Fang Langford

wfreitag wrote:

Le Joueur wrote:

wfreitag wrote: I think Metal has good points. To generalize: the main purpose of all the illusions in my illusionary practices is not to deceive players into thinking something is true; it's to avoid unnecessarily reminding them that it isn't. That's a big difference.

I am highly dubious about trying to find any difference between not "unnecessarily reminding" and 'deceiving.' Unless you explain it more, these two practices sound completely identical except in the former you are deceiving yourself as well.

The difference is huge, so huge that I despair of being able to explain it to you if it's not immediately obvious. Can you see the difference between not telling someone every time you see him that you think he's ugly, and deceiving him that you think he's good-looking?

wfreitag wrote: Disney World's Magic Kingdom deliberately promotes the "illusion" that it is a magical kingdom, when it is in fact an amusement park. It does this primarily by hiding, disguising, or decorating all of the elements people associate with "amusement park-ness," from the huge clanking machinery inside the rides (hidden) to the security guards (disguised) to the trash cans (decorated; that is, disguised as far as possible without impeding their necessary function). A typical amusement park delights in having roller coasters roaring overhead of people who are engaged in other activities; this contributes to an amusement-park atmosphere. The Magic Kingdom avoids this for exactly the same reason.

Is anyone deceived? That is to say, does anyone present over six years of age not know that The Magic Kingdom is an amusement park? No!

Do these measures make a difference in the guests' experience? Yes!

So by the standards of "is anyone really truly fooled," the illusionary elements of the design of The Magic Kingdom do not deceive. That doesn't mean they were ineffective.

wfreitag wrote: I think the analogy is very close, but I'll go ahead and spell it out anyway. Suppose I run a game in which players do not control the Story. Suppose I use Intuitive Continuity with a heavy reliance on Roads to Rome. I would do this so I could use certain illusion-based techniques.
(How many times must I point out that the presence of illusion alone is not enough for it to be Illusionism? If it were, all gaming would be Illusionism, as there is the illusion of 'being your character.')
Chief among them in this case would be giving the players free choice of where to travel, but moving elements of the plot into their path no matter where they decide to go.

Is anyone truly fooled into thinking the players have control over the story? No. Why not? Is it because I make them sign a waiver when they join the game declaring their informed consent on who's going to control the story? No. Why not? Because no one coming into my game ever expects to control the story. They've never played in an RPG where they had any control over the story. They've never heard of RPGs where players have control over the story. I no more need to explain this to them than a car dealer needs to say, "Y'know, just so we're on the same page here, none of these cars can fly," or Disney has to say "Y'know, this isn't really a magical kingdom; if you're coming here to find a fairy godmother who can grant your wishes you'll be disappointed." I don't need to tell them they don't. I certainly don't tell them they do.

wfreitag wrote: Back in reality, if my players aren't really fooled, does that mean my illusionary tactics are a failure?

wfreitag wrote: That's the difference between "not unnecessarily reminding" and "deceiving." Fail to appreciate that difference, and you're throwing out half of what our culture has learned of narrative artifice over the past few thousand years.

wfreitag wrote: I don't care whether or not the consensual definition of "illusionism" ultimately is chosen to be inclusive of techniques that do not (in the sense of truly fooling) 'deceive.' (Notice that I've avoided the word 'Illusionism' in all previous paragraphs). That's a minor point of terminology. But it must be recognized that illusion, in general, does not have to 'deceive' in that sense in order to serve artistic ends. That's important.

What I don't understand from your articles is balanced between participation in the story from Actor stance and the gamemaster "controlling everything." If the players are creating statements on the Premise only from Actor stance, how is the gamemaster not "controlling everything" (else)? Surely you are not suggesting that a gamemaster who is "controlling everything" is also controlling the participation of the Actor stance players as well? If you're not then I see a recipe for a Narrativist game where the players are "participating in creation of story" purely in Actor stance and the gamemaster is "controlling everything" at the same time.

Le Joueur wrote:
Again, how many times do I have to write that I am not in any form conflating all illusions with Illusionism? Have I not said that only the illusions used for deceipt are Illusionism?

This has been my point from the begining. We are agreeing here. Can you point out the point where you came to mistaken belief that I indicated all illusion was Illusionism, so I can correct it?

I think Metal has good points. To generalize: the main purpose of all the illusions in my illusionary practices is not to deceive players into thinking something is true; it's to avoid unnecessarily reminding them that it isn't. That's a big difference.

I am highly dubious about trying to find any difference between not "unnecessarily reminding" and 'deceiving.' Unless you explain it more, these two practices sound completely identical except in the former you are deceiving yourself as well.

wfreitag wrote: The problem appears to be that I was discussing a point about the use of illusion in RPGs, not the definition of "Illusionism."

Metal Fatigue had a valid question, which I seconded. That question, paraphrased, is: since the proposed definition of illusion is exclusive to a fairly rare class of situations, is there, or is there a need for, a term for the far more common applications of non-deceptive illusion (a terribly misleading term, that) that can substantially affect modes of play?

That doesn't seem so off-topic to me, but as I feel more than a little unwelcome here, I'll leave your thread in peace.

- Walt

Actually, Walt, I hope you remain with the discussion.

I'd like to remind everyone that valid points are not to be dismissed, and that sarcasm is completely inappropriate. Both Metal Fatigue and Walt are participating in this thread in good faith, and I hope they continue to do so.

Fang: you do not have the authority to question others' participation in a given thread, or most importantly to deem their input on or off topic, except in your own forum. That task falls to me. If you think someone is being off-topic, then bring it to my attention by private mail.

Having reviewed the topic over all the posts, I think that some work on Illusionism is necessary. However, I also think that people are being way, way too committed to whatever they thought the term must be referring to. Everyone has raised excellent points about various events or styles of play - but they are not talking about the same things. Getting to that common ground should be the point of the thread, not clinging to one's turf and defending it against all comers.

Best,
Ron

Okay. First of all, nothing I have posted here was intended sarcasm; it may have read as such, this is hard to make a difference when I won't use smilies.

Second, I did not mean to questions anyone's presence in this thread; that is clearly out of bounds, I never thought to go there. I never meant to imply that anything was off topic, in fact the converse. When I say, "what place..." that's what I really mean. As in, 'can you help me understand how what you are saying answers the question posed in the title of the thread.' (Admittedly, it came off harsh, and for that I apologize; you may have noticed my weekend posts require more apologies.)

My assumption all along has been that everything was on topic. That's why I have misinterpreted all non-Illusionism illusion comments as connected by the implication that all illusion is Illusionism. (My poorly formed request was to clarify how a discussion of non-Illusionism illusions relate to the question, "What is Illusionism?")

Let me fix an example of how the miscommunication seems to be running:

Thread title: "What is Illusionism?"

Me: "Here is what I believe is Illusionism."

Others: "But such and so about illusions"

Me: "Illusions aren't Illusionism."

Others: "This and that about illusions, no mention of Illusionism"

Me: "Can you help me understand how this 'no mention of Illusionism' illusion stuff relates to the question posed in the title of the thread?"

There is no intended "unwelcome," just a bit of confusion. I had to assume that somehow the discussion of illusion was in some way a response to the initial question; I responded as such (very poorly I might add with my apologies).

(And for the record, Walt's guess is correct, as far as illusion goes, but I'm not talking about illusion in general, hence the confusion.)

Fang Langford

Thanks, Fang.

I hope everyone can see that the goal really is discussion, and that any frustration is arising because people need to be heard, and aren't getting the responses that indicate that they are. Apparently the topic is touching people in a way that brings up this particular need.

I'm not surprised about this. Illusionism (in the broadest sense) is a source of great emotional stress among role-players, in my experience - not because it's inherently functional or dysfunctional, but because, like railroading, it's completely dependent on the social contract involved. So given all the stressful histories we've been through, individually, and that those histories include both making illusion work and rejecting it as undesirable (depending on who's talking) ... well, again, people need to be heard.

So maybe, although I acknowledge to Fang that it's not really the question that opened this thread, it's necessary to have more of a "town meeting" or "slam" about Illusionist play, in which a person can be heard and his or her points added to the mix, for a while. Then once everyone is assured that all voices really have been heard, then we can get to work about the topic and say things like "That's not what I was asking" without a lot of tug-of-war happening.

What do you think?

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: those histories include both making illusion work and rejecting it as undesirable (depending on who's talking)...well, again, people need to be heard.

So maybe, although I acknowledge to Fang that it's not really the question that opened this thread, it's necessary to have more of a "town meeting" or "slam" about Illusionist play, in which a person can be heard and his or her points added to the mix, for a while. Then once everyone is assured that all voices really have been heard, then we can get to work about the topic and say things like "That's not what I was asking" without a lot of tug-of-war happening.

What do you think?

Le Joueur wrote: Let me fix an example of how the miscommunication seems to be running:

Thread title: "What is Illusionism?"

Me: "Here is what I believe is Illusionism."

Others: "But such and so about illusions"

Me: "Illusions aren't Illusionism."

Others: "This and that about illusions, no mention of Illusionism"

Me: "Can you help me understand how this 'no mention of Illusionism' illusion stuff relates to the question posed in the title of the thread?"

Interesting. At the risk of being off topic, when I read Walt's description of the Magic Kingdom analogy, this is exactly what comes into my mind when I think Illusionism. It very much has to do with a willing suspension of disbelief on the part of the players. Very much the Magician analogy.

I think that previous arguments may have caused that meaning to be lost, or something, but it's very much exactly what I always meant. I'm sorry if it was any confusion caused by my own inability to describa a particular phenomenon that has clouded this issue. I not sure where Fang's description comes from, or it's particular use (note, I would call it a subset of Illusionism), but he definitely has his own concrete definition worked out. If it's that important to Fang that Illusionism means what he has defined it, then great, lets all call it that. It bewilders me, but that's probably my problem. Illusionism was a term created on the fly that seeed to fit something particular, but maybe it doesn't.

However, I'm going to need a term for what I am (and apparently Walt, and others are). Fnorncie just doesn't seem to fit. In order to fill the gap and to come up with a term that makes perfect sense, I propose that what Walt described as Illusionism be called from now on Freitagism in honor of his quite accurate and precise description of the style of play that I've been trying to elucidate. Thank you Walt.

Mike "Frietagist" Holmes

wfreitag wrote: I offer the following definition:

Illusionism: Any practice used by a gamemaster during play, without the consent of the players, that constrains the players' ability to control the player-characters' major decisions.

wfreitag wrote: I offer the following definition:

Illusionism: Any practice used by a gamemaster during play, without the consent of the players, that constrains the players' ability to control the player-characters' major decisions.

(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?

This is what I was thinking with the 'new coat of paint' thing; as I indirectly suggested earlier, there is an inherent problem with using the word 'Illusionist.' There's just a coolness factor that cannot be denied. Add to that, the implication of deceit (as you pointed out so well), not to mention the natural misidentification of all illusions as Illusionism, and I think the problem lie in the word not the choice of description.

So I guess, if it's to remain Illusionism then it'd have to be 'Any metagame practice used by a gamemaster, without the knowledge of the players, that constrains their ability to affect play.' If it's going to be Freitagism, it'd be 'Any metagame practice used by a gamemaster, without the consent of the players, that constrains their ability to affect play' (which I'd prefer for the utility of the definition). (Are you okay with the name throwing?)

When I read the whole thing back though, I begin to wonder if some implication of 'unfairness' might be necessary. I mean aren't rules themselves 'a metagame constraint on the ability of a player to affect play?' I dunno, I still think there's something in there that I'm groping for and just not getting my 'hands' on. Perhaps all my changes aren't working, what do you think?

I prepare the bare bones of a dramatic plot and we start gaming. If the players start screwing around and avoiding my plot I don't often indulge them and create an entire new plot on the fly. I twist, I deceive, I back-track and lie - I create the illusion that what they're doing is all part of the plot, and *wrap the plot around them*. All referee's do it. They have to. (Elliott)

I was a great illusionist too, once upon a time. I could slip those wiley players a pre-planned plot so smoothly they never felt it. Or if they did, they liked it and went along because they accepted that plot was "mine" whereas tactics and details were "theirs." (Edwards)

Intuitive Continuity (from UnderWorld, although there are many other examples): the GM throws a whole ton of little X's at the players, WITHOUT deciding how those are related to the bigger issues at hand (the sketchy Z, in the GM's mind). Depending on whom the players are interested in, whom they tell what, and what they do, the GM now beefs up those elements into conflicts and hassles ("Situation") - perhaps even changing his Big X [sic] into something else, or modifying it greatly. Essentially, the players have almost wholly defined X, definitely defined Y, and probably refined Z immensely, strictly through their own actions and responses to the bucket of raw material presented by the GM. (Edwards)

wrote: ain, Walt, excellent analysis. I apollogise in advance for the line by line dissection, but it's getting hard to follow in any other way.
<

quot;wfreitag]Illusionism has descended into villany, possibly beyond redemption. Oh sure, people go out of their way to call it "not necessarily dysfunctional." But then they turn around and mention things like players being "victims of Illusionism." So it's pretty clear it's not a favorable, or even a neutral, term.

Yes, Paul's agenda is to make GM domination seem a bad thing. Always has been as he is a huge proponent of Narrativism and, most importantly Protagonism, both of which are destroyed (by his definitions) by a lack of player participation in a very active sense.

Hey, I resemble that accusation! But Walt's talking about Paul Elliott.

Paul

Hello,

Excuse me, gentlemen and whoever else.

Illusionist is not a derogatory or pejorative term. It's a mode of play. Paul didn't treat it as such (to the contrary), and I didn't respond to it as such. My essay presents it with respect, and in fact, the re-write presents it in a better context (ie not as part of the Incoherence section).

Walt, if you are perceiving others to treat Illusionist play as a negative thing, it's because they personally do not like it. Paul Czege is entitled to dislike Illusionism and talk about how to avoid it; he is not entitled to criticize others for liking it and talking about how to enhance it. Both modes of discussion are perfectly all right.

Taking either of those spins on the topic as definitional is flatly incorrect.

I am still putting together my big-picture thoughts on Illusionist play, and part of it includes acknowledging that my take on it, right there in Paul Elliot's original thread on GO, went off the beam. But maybe not entirely off the beam, so we'll see what people think, later.

One key point: no matter what, the term from now on must go back to Paul Elliot's original description - retroactive story-fitting, by the GM, based on non-story-creating actions by the players.

That puts us in a Terminology discussion. Either Paul Elliot's description is the only meaning of Illusionism, and I must rename the front-loaded-story method; or the term Illusionism may apply to either of the two methods, and they become sub-sets. I have plenty to say about this, but I also think the authority regarding this issue is Paul Elliott.

Best,
Ron

P.S. I used surnames to make sure we knew which Paul we're talking about.

wfreitag wrote: (Quoting to answer questions, not to pick.)

Le Joueur wrote: 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.)

wfreitag wrote: 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.)

wfreitag wrote: 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.

wfreitag wrote: '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.)

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

Mike Holmes wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: 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.

Mike Holmes wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: 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.

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]

Le Joueur wrote:
"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?

Le Joueur wrote:
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.)

wfreitag wrote: 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.

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

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.



- Walt

wfreitag wrote: 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 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.

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

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

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

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

Mike Holmes wrote: 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.

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

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.

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

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