This was split from a thread about players modifying dice results in Actual Play.

Assuming that the GM ran a game "straight" (pinball-sim, here's a map, go explore ... plays by all the rules as commonly interperted/understood, and doesn't fudge any die rolls) and the players essentially don't roll dice--or do, but can override them at any point, would that be player-driven illusionism?

I.e. the GM is presented with the "illusion" of a game in which the character's fates are influenced by the environment/the GM's dictates but really they're 100% in control of any mechanics-dictated encounter.

-Marco

Hi Marco,

No, it wouldn't.

We've discussed the role of the "curtain" in illusionist play, behind which someone at the table is exerting Force ("oomph" as I called it) over the decisions, and the significance of the decisions, of the other people at the table. I don't see any "curtain" in your example.

Best,
Ron

But, to the extent that a player has the ability to control events, sure, they can use illusionism. In practice, this is limited, because most Illusionist techniques involve control over time (and even in games that have some player Director Power, the events are usually limited).

So, if the player were allowed to change rolls covertly, somehow, that would count. I've postulated ways that this could be done that wouldn't result in a constant assumption of fudging by the other players. In fact, to go with the recent bluffing thread, I could imagine a bluffing mechanic that would work to promote Illusionist play on the player's part.

Mike

Hi Marco,

In a recent thread that I can't pinpoint (it was probably one of the recent Lumpley Principle threads), the question came up (briefly) whether a participant could have more authority over the shared imagined space than the participant himself was aware of having.

I didn't reply on that thread because the discussion moved on quickly, but I did think of one example from far outside the sphere of role playing games. There's a party game sometimes called "Psychoanalysis" in which a sucker is told that his task is to figure out, by asking yes/no questions, the plot of a story that the others will make up. The sucker is sequestered for a time ostensibly for the story to be made up, but the others never do so. Instead, when the sucker asks questions, the group answers yes or no based on what letter of the alphabet each question ends with. The sucker thereby invents a story based on essentially his own suggestions filtered by random chance. Often the story can end up very raunchy, creepy, or worse. The sucker might then be asked to briefly psychoanalyze the unknown person who made up such a twisted tale. Finally, they inform the sucker that he essentially made it up himself.

Not quite parallel to your scenario, but there is definitely a curtain there. A GM could conceivably use such a trick in a role playing game, committing to make decisions based on some type of inadvertent player cue including what outcome the player seemed to desire most (though the more conceptually relevant the cue, the faster the players will figure it out). This could give you reverse illusionism in the sense of the players having more force than they believed they had rather than less, but it's still conventional Illusionism in the sense of the GM being the one behind the curtain.

The case you describe is so odd that even if it were Illusionism (I imagine you had in mind that the GM is unaware of the players' conduct and is led to believe that the players are rolling dice objectively, which seems like a curtain to me) I'm not sure what the significance of that would be.

- Walt

Damnit Walt! Let my cat out of the bag, whydontcha!

A long time ago, I created a game called Cell Gamma that does exactly this. Essentially the players wake up in a cell with amnesia. There are all sorts of environmental cues, but, like the Prisoner, the players don't know why they've been incarcerated, or by whom. In the end, the GM advice shows how to build the motives of the "bad guys" and how to let the players escape from their own suggestions.

Anyone who want's a copy can PM me.

Mike

Walt wrote: A GM could conceivably use such a trick in a role playing game, committing to make decisions based on some type of inadvertent player cue including what outcome the player seemed to desire most (though the more conceptually relevant the cue, the faster the players will figure it out).

Interesting observation, Jason.

The way I see it, a GM making all decisions based on what outcome the player wanted most at that moment is kind of like no-myth play, in the same way that an outboard motor bolted to a log is kind of like a motorboat. Some of the essentials are there (it floats and it moves), but there are a lot of important additional details needed to make it functional.

Some of those additional details, in the case of no-myth play, include attention to plausibility and consistency, balancing between different players' potentially conflicting aspirations, balancing between short and long-term player desires, and incorporating the GM's own share of creativity and vision. Any of these can take priority over "what the player wants to happen" at any given moment -- just as they can in just about any mode and style of play. For the GM to become a doormat, who passively follows player cues and nothing else, is possible within the realm of no-myth play. But it's not the normal expectation (and it's pretty easy to avoid).

- Walt

We'll call it Covert Open No-Myth. Howzat? "normal" No-Myth play is, I think mostly Narrativist, actually, and can't be codified by the Illusionist terms. Which is what Walt was saying.

One could contrast this idea with Covert Forceful No-Myth, which is an extreme form of Illusionism in which the GM has nothing prepared solidly, but still forces things to adhere to his vision of a plot (mostly endloaded, I'd guess).

Open Forceful No-Myth would be a form of Participationism with the GM working with no solid background.

Open Reflexive No-Myth would be... odd. Basically, the players would be "transmitting" their desires to the GM would would openly be creating the plot on the fly. Which makes one wonder why not just do Narrativism, but given sufficiently passive players... I dunno, could happen.

Just extending the hypothesis to it's end conclusion. I think we have at least one completely theoretical sort of play here (as in they don't exist but could, in theory), and maybe more.

Mike

I've done something that felt like Open Reflexive No-Myth, actually--as the GM. The PC's have completed whatever I had prepared and someone starts doing something of their own invention and looking to me to help make it interesting.

So I have some clue (sometimes explicit, often not that clear--but there is a desire at work, I think) and I'm making up plot on the fly as the player does whatever they do and looks for interesting stuff out of it.

Would that fit your definition. Happens quite alot IME.

The why not just do narrativism is:
1. No coherent theme unless providied by the GM (and then, often appreciated).
2. The player wants something interesting and is game to work with GM created complications or whatever--but doesn't have firm ideas themself.

-Marco