I don't know why I didn't do this earlier.  This is a split of the thread "[D&D] I Quit DMing", specifically the open conversation between myself and Rob Alexander.  The specific posts start here, and continue specifically here, here and here.  Rather than overrun Will's thread, I continue over here.

---

Rob wrote:
Kent,

Okay, so it sounds like your GM rolls with the punches. Question is, how much illusionism is involved here? E.g. if the GM has an adventure in mind, does he tend to warp the world so that, whatever you do, you end up pursuing that adventure?

If we want genuinely open-ended, player-driven play, there needs to be some sense in which the players are selecting some options and shutting down others. There needs to be a sense in which the play that happens wouldn't have occurred if the players had chosen otherwise.

The thing to look are pivotal points, like that raid - was it heavy defenses, or was it 'No, the necromancer doesn't die now'?

For example, the impression of 'heavy defence' sort of creates a resource an illusionist GM can keep drawing on, pulling more and more rabits/guards out of the hat without appearing to do so of course, to ensure that the necromancer lives and keeps this cool payback story going.

How'd that battle go, in terms of handling?

To be honest, I don't remember the first attempt all that well, and I'm still remembering key points from the second.  The GM was never one to stop us from doing something because it would be hard, or stop us from doing something that's too easy.

The first attempt was simply far beyond our ability.  The second ... well, the second ended with the Necromancer getting away, but it was a Reoccurring Villain cliche', not an illusion.  The very end of this lengthy, sessions-long encounter went something like this:

* Necromancer cornered for the third time, adventurers on their last legs.
* Necromancer starts to cast a spell.  Someone throws something large and heavy (perhaps another adventurer) at him.
* Necromancer's Power Word: Kill is disrupted.  Necromancer dies.

Yes, the DM was prepared to kill the party, and did not change things so that we succeeded, and did not kill us at a later time because we managed to survive here.  The story was written.

That's not to say that the DM didn't mess with the characters with things we thought were resolved.  (The Necromancer came back, after all.)  But if this is using illusionism to force a storyline on us, then we didn't mind.  We certainly didn't notice.

At no point did the DM push a storyline on us that we expressed we would rather not do.  Sometimes we had to muddle through a little until we got to a reasonable point to extract ourselves -- getting stuck in an icy wasteland is not a good point to mystically find a teleportation pad, but finding a doorway that the denizens were using for plot-related purposes could magically appear.

This really did happen, but I cannot tell you if the portal was part of the original design, added before we began, or added due to our frustration.  Our DM retooled pre-existing sources (modules, gazetteers) extensively to fit the world and our goals better.  Does it matter when he tools them, if it's for the benefit of the players?

I'm not 100% sure if this addresses your perspective, Callan.  If not, I think I need more direction.

Hi Kent,

Your aware of participationism as well? It's the aware version of illusionism, where the player knows the GM's going to decide things and is cool with that. It's actually a valid playstyle - and I'm pretty sure games I've been in have dipped in and out of it many times. From your account, it seems similar - I presume you all went to genuinely kill the necromancer, but then your cool with it because 'it was a Reoccurring Villain cliche'.

I'm not sure if your sessions would be entirely participationist, that'd probably take a few accounts to figure out and prolly doesn't matter. But the fact is it seems you identify atleast some of the moments by names like 'Reoccurring Villain cliche'. That probably means your aware of when you dip into participationism. Also, that probably means by contrast you kind of know when there's real uncertainty.

Anyway, what's the big deal about participationism? Well there's not a big deal, really - your already comfortable with the 'Reoccurring Villain cliche', because it's not really a big deal.

I think since your comfortable with the technique, it'd be interesting to hear from you what 'Reoccurring Villain cliche' is useful for, what sort of goals it could meet in play. :)

Hey, Callan, I'm not sure we're on the same page.  To us, the purpose of the GM is to decide things.  I don't think this is untrue for typically indie games, either.  Even in Primetime Adventures, the Producer does quite a bit of deciding.  Is this some kind of illusionism, too?  I really don't know, since the term is new to me.  I had assumed it meant "railroading", but now I'm not so sure, and even "railroading" is a pretty vague term that's loaded to the gills.

Maybe if you can explain what kinds of things are decided that makes something "participationism," I can try to tell you if that's what's going on.

As for the necromancer, we never set out for it to be a cliche' villain.  It was a decision of the GM's, and was the last time that happened.  We did have adversaries that did come and go, just not in a cliche'd (railroaded) manner.

Illusionism is where the DM appears to be letting players influence the direction of the game, whereas in fact he is not. Both the left and the right hand doors lead to the same room, no amount of strategic brilliance will turn the tide of the battle, nor any amount of diplomacy avert it.

Illusionism is probably best described as the GM persistently playing the Players characters as well as the situation and NPCs. I think Ron describes it as "reaching over and playing the characters under the players’ noses". (Something I feel I have done in the distant past but this could just be a guilt trip.)

It doesn't sound like your GM was doing this, or at least not often enough for it to be the dysfunctional activity that the label implies.

Participationism is when the GM makes strong or forceful suggestions to you about your character out in the open; he might make suggestions about character motivations or character class in the interest of helping you see things his way or in the interest of setting consistency. But, he is doing this with your consent and because it is not covert you can say no or make clear that you want to control these things.

A possible example of Illusionist Play (difficult to portray because its a social problem):

GM: Your Dwarf can't just ignore such insults, what's your real statement of intent. (looks at player with a disappointed look designed to elicit feelings that the player did something bad. Note: he is also blocking your intent with a strong negative statement.)

PC: Thinks, 'hey GMs not happy that's not good, better go along with him'. OK my character jumps in and shouts "how dare you insult me like that"!
(Note: nothing is openly discussed and this could eventually lead to totally non verbal control of the situation.)

A possible example of Participation play with limits discussed:

GM: I am surprised you would have your dwarf act like that! I would expect him to be affronted and jump into the action, and I kind of figured that would be what you would do. The rest of the scene hinged on it.

PC: OK, well I don't really think he insulted me that strongly, I might be more inclined to jump in if he mentioned my mother's beard but in future I would suggest you don't hinge the plot on my dwarf being easily offended because he's a bit more rounded than that.

Alright, thanks guys.  Interesting that Web Weaver's definition of Illusionism and Wreckage's are different, if similar.  Still, I get the idea.

I'm a bit hesitant to put such labels on any actions of the DM, because they sound like they carry a negative connotation.  For instance, our DM did something that we got to calling "Just One More Door".  He would say, "Oh there can't possibly be more going on in this place.  Why don't you move through one more door then we'll call it a night."  Nobody felt pressured or harrassed, the game would not have gone astray if we didn't or if we never went through that door.  He never abused the system to make sure we went through that door.  If a thief successfully did a, for instance, Hear Noise check, his response would be accurate for the situation.

And yet ... and yet ... about half the time, going through that door was a disaster for the characters.  It was about as malicious as a prank of the whupee-cushion or jalapeno-flavored gum variety.  It didn't disrupt the story in the game, and we never felt pressured to go through the door blindly if at all, so I hesitate giving it a label that implies that the DM relied upon any sort of coersion.

It was my first post, so don't weight it too heavily. I'm pretty certain the term has been used in both contexts, but my reading here is done late at night, so I could be utterly confuzzled.

I think Weaver's definition of Participationism is a little off.  See the provisional glossary for definitions of Illusionism, Participationism, and related terms here.

In short, Participationism is just Illusionism without the illusion.  The players are there not to make any significant decisions, but to provide Color, and that's about it.  They realize this, and are happy with it.  They're "playing along" with the GM, rather than opposing him, in this endeavor.

-Will

Note that my definition includes an added layer of negotiation to highlight that it's not compulsory. If the player just said fine my dwarf dives in and was happy to always do such when prompted, then the result would be ongoing Participationism, but as written its temporary and negotiated away from.

The key, as Will suggests is that everyone is happy to follow the GMs prompts in moments of story direction (something I would never enjoy but that's just me).

I see, interesting.  I still think the use of the terms gets in the way of why I responded to the original post, which was to offer play examples with what I thought of as open-ended play yet without retcons and largely without making things up on the fly.  Those things made up on the fly immediately became  canon, so they were not done in any great haste.  There was a strong sense of loose-and-easy feedback from within the group, which I strongly feel is our consession to open-ended play, even if the DM has the bulk of authorial control.

(I can't tell you guys the number of times our DM would just sit there with an obvious I'm-being-patient expression while he waited us to stop.  It's not a perfect method.  Now, who reading this is grinning?  Yeah, you've been there.)

I also feel that the the definitions are too subjective.  Was our DM illusionistic?  Maybe a little from time to time, but for all intents and purposes, no, but I can't say where someone else would debate this point, that the Necromancer issue took decisions out of the hands of the players.  It didn't.

Thenomain wrote:
I'm a bit hesitant to put such labels on any actions of the DM, because they sound like they carry a negative connotation. 

For instance, our DM did something that we got to calling "Just One More Door"...

Web_Weaver wrote: Sounds like a deconstruction of gaming expectations and as such probably fun, and old GM of mine used to delight in "double-double bluff" situations that sound a lot like this, and they were mainly just fun moments. A bit like the old cliché of finding strange numbered polygons in the loot.

It is worth noting that Illusionism is quite rare

I think of Illusionist play like a mystery bus tour, where the GM is the driver and everyone else is just along for the ride. You don't get to drive or choose the destinations but you might get to enjoy the view and visit cool attractions. But I know I would be checking the train times and jumping off at the first town.

Hi again, Kent,

Look at the key points in the game where it appeared to players there was uncertainty (in how something would turn out). Specifically, uncertainty with everyone - even the GM is/appears to be uncertain. Then look at the result, and whether the GM just decided it.

For example

Thenomain wrote: I'm a bit hesitant to put such labels on any actions of the DM, because they sound like they carry a negative connotation.  For instance, our DM did something that we got to calling "Just One More Door".  He would say, "Oh there can't possibly be more going on in this place.  Why don't you move through one more door then we'll call it a night."

Will wrote:
Why not think of it like, oh, I don't know, a train on a railroad?  :)

Funny stories, Will.  Our GM does that occasionally, too.  At the end of a session, "Why did you keep rolling?" / "Oh, just messing with you."

Callan, although I have to percieve what happened through my own version of the Reasonableness Filter, I can also do the opposite.  I can call into suspect everything the GM did, saying how what he was doing was really manipulating the players to make the characters dance, but that way lies doom.  Because I can't tell you exactly what was going through the GM's brain, we can say anything was caused by anything else.  My only solid concession otherwise is to say we've been gaming together for over a decade and it's never come out that we've ever been lead around by the nose.  So either it's not happening, I'm terminally naive, or he's a mastermind of manipulation.

When I look at key points of uncertainty, I don't see a pattern.  I just don't.  I can't help you out, here.

In the specific instance of the Necromancer, we only failed if you think that the goal was to eradicate all signs of the Necromancer from the face of the known worlds.  No, the goal was revenge, and that succeeded.  He was beaten, he just didn't stay dead.  That's a hazzard of a high-fantasy campaign (at least this one), reasonable and not really worth going on about.