A quick question or two on illusionism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Callan--

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

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

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

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

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

Does that help?

--M. J. Young

Hi Callan,

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

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

Best,
Ron

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

Is that what you're getting at?

Mike

Heya all,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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