# RPGs are ... Role Playing Games



## Odhanan (May 5, 2010)

RPGs are not "tales".
RPGs are not "novels".
RPGs are not "stories". 

RPGs are not "wargames".
RPGs are not "board games".
RPGs are not "video games".
RPGs are not "card games".

RPGs are not "movies". 
RPGs are not "thesis".
RPGs are not "studies".
RPGs are not "experiments". 

RPGs are not "campaigns".
RPGs are not "chronicles".
RPGs are not "modules".
RPGs are not "books".

RPGs are not made of "chapters".
Or "scenes". Or "story arcs". Or "plots". 

I think that RPGs are just that: Role Playing Games. 

Comparing RPGs to something else some people might better understand to get them to play a game? Seems only natural.

Anything beyond that just seems to bring more and more noise to the hobby, muddies the waters, and ultimately, changes role playing games into what they never were, should not be, and must not become. 

I think we have a problem as gamers, and as designers too, in that we just can't help but compare RPGs to other things which are not RPGs, and can't help but modify RPGs to better fit the expecations of this or that other medium. And in the end? RPGs just remain bastard products, not a medium of their own.

If we want to change this, we need to treat role playing games as such. We need to stop endlessly comparing them to other things and try to shape them into something, anything, that they ultimately are not. This has been done time and time again, sometimes with pleasant results, and sometimes with not so pleasant ones. Regardless of these results, I think we need to get beyond this stage, somehow, and let RPGs be RPGs, and evolve as such. 

This is not a question vocabulary, structures and design only. It's a problem of mindset and culture. 

I don't know if we ever will. I sure wish we would, though.

Discuss.


----------



## Hussar (May 5, 2010)

Odhanan said:


> RPGs are not "tales".
> RPGs are not "novels".
> RPGs are not "stories".
> 
> ...




100% agree



> RPGs are not made of "chapters".
> Or "scenes". Or "story arcs". Or "plots".




Now we hit where I disagree.  I believe that in playing an RPG, we most definitely can use all of those things.  Unless your game is nothing but randomly generated gibberish, you have a plot, a story arc and what is a keyed encounter if not a "scene"?

RPG's are a creative endevour, and share many of the same things that any group story telling activity has.


----------



## Rechan (May 5, 2010)

They are not *to you*.


----------



## ppaladin123 (May 5, 2010)

Platonism is scary.


----------



## Nightson (May 5, 2010)

Odhanan said:


> RPGs are not "tales".
> RPGs are not "novels".
> RPGs are not "stories".




Correct, while the recounting of the events that occur during a RPG would qualify, the RPG does not.



Odhanan said:


> RPGs are not "wargames".
> RPGs are not "board games".
> RPGs are not "video games".
> RPGs are not "card games".




Well, these definitions are not mutually exclusive, but while they could theoretically overlap they are clearly not equivalent.



Odhanan said:


> RPGs are not "movies".
> RPGs are not "thesis".
> RPGs are not "studies".
> RPGs are not "experiments".




Concur on all points.



Odhanan said:


> RPGs are not "campaigns".
> RPGs are not "chronicles".
> RPGs are not "modules".
> RPGs are not "books".




Well, RPGs are indeed not these things, but the are what makes up an RPG (modules being optional).



Odhanan said:


> RPGs are not made of "chapters".
> Or "scenes". Or "story arcs". Or "plots".




There is no set word for delineating natural stopping points within the experience of playing a RPG, hence these words are used because they have an analogous meaning in other forms of creative expression.


----------



## Rechan (May 5, 2010)

Some RPGs, based purely by their rules, operate _exactly_ like what you say they are not.

Take Penny For My Thoughts. Penny's rules are as follows:

Write three statements down on slips of paper, and put them in a hat. Now, on a separate paper, write "I remember (Blank)" three times. Now, say the statement ("I remember..."), draw a slip of paper from the hat, and fill in the blank. People at the table ask you questions about the sentence to garner more details. Then at the end, when you put all of the questions together to form a paragraph about your memory, someone offers you a penny and asks you "Or was it *This* way?" and you have the option of adopting their suggestion. 

The Role Playing comes in the form of everyone being amnesiacs in an Institute trying to recover their memories. But the *game* part is as much of a "game" as mad libs. What it is is improvisational story telling or narrative brainstorming, facilitated by the loosest idea of guidelines for question asking. 

Then there's PrimeTime Adventures, which is *built* to emulate a TV series, from scenes, to episodes, to seasons. The second edition doesn't even use dice, but conflict resolution is settled by cards, and the person with the highest Influence based on cards gets control of the narration of the episode and win conflict resolution (basically saying what happens). 

Honestly, the only reason for the _game_ part of RPGs is one simple thing: Conflict resolution. If I say "This happens" and you say "No it doesn't", we must have a method of deciding who is correct. Thus, a rule is merely there to facilitate the question "Did what I say just happen?" 

If the only conflict resolution is a coin flip, and everything else is people sitting around a table taking turns telling a story, is it still a *Game*?


----------



## Rechan (May 5, 2010)

> changes role playing games into what they never were, should not be, and  must not become.



RPGs came out of wargames. Chainmail was a wargame from whence came D&D. Instead of playing a unit, you played a single character from that unit. To people who played wargames at the time, they could have said "This should not be and it can't become that".them from growing. 

Who decides what should not be? And who decides what they can't become?

By saying "You can't do that with an RPG", you're basically saying "You can't play that way". You're stopping someone from doing something different or new, and maybe *they want to play that way*.


----------



## Dice4Hire (May 5, 2010)

Rechan said:


> They are not *to you*.




This.

To me, RPGs are a lot of those things. I do not divide my interests with walls so high.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 5, 2010)

Odhanan said:


> RPGs are not "tales".



Baron Munchausen


> RPGs are not "novels".



WoD


> RPGs are not "stories".



Dogs in the Vineyard


> RPGs are not "wargames".



Chainmail


> RPGs are not "board games".



Arkham Horror


> RPGs are not "video games".



World of Warcraft


> RPGs are not "card games".



Legend of Five Rings


The truth of the matter is, RPGs can and will be anything you mentioned above.  Instead of trying to pin down RPGs as some mythological purity, I say open your eyes and arms to the fact that roleplaying games are by their very nature able to bring the "play" to any other genre or style.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 5, 2010)

I see roleplaying games as a broad church, not narrow. They contain elements of many other entertainment forms and can place their focus in many different areas, or none.

Early D&D closely resembles the wargame Chainmail, for example, particularly in the way Dave Arneson ran it, with massed battles becoming a significant element late on in his Blackmoor campaign. The game of a very railroading DM who had devoured the 80s Dragonlance novels and tried to run the Dragonlance modules as close to the books as possible would resemble an oral novel. The Birthright setting for D&D is a hybrid of rpg and boardgame-like kingdom management.



> The D&D game is a fantasy game of your imagination. It's part acting, part storytelling, part social interaction, part war game, and part dice rolling.



 - 3.5 PHB

And that's just D&D. Never mind getting into other styles of game such as Call of Cthulhu, Star Wars or Prince Valiant. I even regard computer rpgs such as World of Warcraft and Morrowind as roleplaying games, though I know many people don't.


----------



## Hussar (May 5, 2010)

I gotta go with Doug and the Prof on this one.  I'm a big tent kinda guy.  To me, defining RPG's is kinda like defining genre - a definition based on the edges doesn't work.  The best definitions of genre start at the center.  Same with RPG's.

I'm explaining this badly.  Think of a forest.  We all know what a forest looks like.  Now, define forest.  Trees per square metre?  Age of the trees?  Amount of sunlight filtering down?  I dunno.  I do know that when I'm standing somewhere and all I see are trees around me, I'm in a forest.

RPG's work the same way.  There are some things that you can point to and say, yup, that's an RPG at work.  D&D in any form pretty much fits this bill, as does any fairly traditional game that follows similar paradigms - campaign play, non-competitive, etc.  There's lots of stuff at the edges that might shade over into something else.  MMO's for example.

Meh, I figure our hobby is small enough that when we start being exclusionary based on nothing more than personal tastes, we're just shooting ourselves in the foot.


----------



## Umbran (May 5, 2010)

Odhanan said:


> RPGs are not "experiments".




They very well can be.  I've run a mess of experiments in game form.




> RPGs are not made of "chapters".
> Or "scenes". Or "story arcs". Or "plots".




Up until you got here, I was mostly with you.  Here, though, you go awry.

Up to here, you were talking about not likening an RPG to another thing.  Now, you've drifted off into, "These types of structures cannot be used within a game," and you're... dead wrong there.  



> I think that RPGs are just that: Role Playing Games.




Yes, but that statement, without explication, contains no useful information.  Comparison and contrast to other things is how humans make sense of the world.  To insist that we never talk with comparisons is a good way to make it difficult to understand the thing.

Even discussion of a poor analogy helps us understand what we are actually dealing with.


----------



## awesomeocalypse (May 5, 2010)

Tautologies are...tautologies.


----------



## Jhaelen (May 5, 2010)

Odhanan said:


> RPGs are not "XXX".



No, they ARE not, but they certainly (can) contain elements from "XXX". And thus it's useful to compare them to "XXX".


----------



## Grymar (May 5, 2010)

RPGs are....whatever is fun to you. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 5, 2010)

Odhanan said:


> Anything beyond that just seems to bring more and more noise to the hobby, muddies the waters, and ultimately, changes role playing games into what they never were, should not be, and must not become.



I mostly agree with most of your list, but at this point I have to ask...why not? Why should RPGs not change, and why should they not become something different? If people would enjoy playing this something else, why avoid it? Or is it simply a matter or terminology..."you can play that, but it's _*not an RPG*_" type of thing? That sort of elitism helps no one.


----------



## Crothian (May 5, 2010)

Is this like being able to only prove the null hypothesis?  Are we only able to say what they are not and is that really helpful?  I would think saying what a game is is better or we end up with

RPGs are not elements
RPGs are not radio waves
RPGs are not furry little creatures from small planetoids we have yet to discover in the crab nebula


----------



## coyote6 (May 5, 2010)

RPGs are not Kevin Bacon
RPGs are not back bacon
RPGs are not bacon bits
RPGs are not croutons
RPGs are not Jack's broken heart
RPGs are not Jack's complete lack of surprise

Say, this could be amusing.


----------



## Rykion (May 5, 2010)

D'oh.  All this time I thought RPG stood for rocket-propelled grenade.  I have a completely different understanding of this forum now.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 5, 2010)

coyote6 said:


> RPGs are not back bacon



Oh, would that they were. Preferably with some bacon bits on top.


----------



## jaerdaph (May 5, 2010)

_Istanbul was Constantinople
Now it's Istanbul, not Constantinople
Been a long time gone, Constantinople
Now it's Turkish delight on a moonlit night
Every gal in Constantinople
Lives in Istanbul, not Constantinople
So if you've a date in Constantinople
She'll be waiting in Istanbul
Even old New York was once New Amsterdam
Why they changed it I can't say
People just liked it better that way
So take me back to Constantinople
No, you can't go back to Constantinople
Been a long time gone, Constantinople
Why did Constantinople get the works?
That's nobody's business but the Turks_


----------



## Desdichado (May 5, 2010)

Odhanan said:


> Anything beyond that just seems to bring more and more noise to the hobby, muddies the waters, and ultimately, changes role playing games into what they never were, should not be, and must not become.



Are you purposefully mimicking the Old Ones quote for comic effect?  Please tell me yes.


			
				Odhanan said:
			
		

> I think we have a problem as gamers, and as designers too, in that we just can't help but compare RPGs to other things which are not RPGs, and can't help but modify RPGs to better fit the expecations of this or that other medium. And in the end? RPGs just remain bastard products, not a medium of their own.



I think you've spectacularly failed to establish that that's actually a problem.  Even in your own next paragraph, you admit that it often leads to pleasant results.


			
				Odhanan said:
			
		

> If we want to change this, we need to treat role playing games as such. We need to stop endlessly comparing them to other things and try to shape them into something, anything, that they ultimately are not. This has been done time and time again, sometimes with pleasant results, and sometimes with not so pleasant ones. Regardless of these results, I think we need to get beyond this stage, somehow, and let RPGs be RPGs, and evolve as such.



All well and good, but we don't want to change that.  I think taking some concepts from cinematography, the structure of a good novel, using some cues from episodic TV shows and mimicking them in a session, etc. have all been good things that have improved the quality of many people's games.  Saying we shouldn't do that for the sake of some kind of hypothetical purity of gaming is just inane.


			
				Odhanan said:
			
		

> This is not a question vocabulary, structures and design only. It's a problem of mindset and culture.



It's not even a problem at all.  You've taken good things and tried to redefine them as problems.  They're not.


			
				Odhanan said:
			
		

> I don't know if we ever will. I sure wish we would, though.
> 
> Discuss.



Well, it's certainly possible to remove yourself from discussion that dismays you.  Assuming that this post was even serious to begin with.


----------



## Odhanan (May 5, 2010)

Very interesting feedback. Thanks everyone!

Just a bunch of disclaimers at this point: I'm not claiming to stand above the fray in this. I may not think of RPGs in terms of stories, say, but I might think about them in terms of wargames, for instance. I think that's something we pretty much all do, subconsciously or not. 

I'm not trying to claim that RPGs are "just games" either. The question of what an RPG is and is not is central to this topic, and I deliberately avoided any attempt at a definition. If there is such a thing, it is what remains once you strip RPGs from any reference to other media, in my mind. What that would be, is a good question indeed. I'm not sure I have an answer to that.


----------



## Oryan77 (May 5, 2010)

RPGs are ... fun.

That's all I need


----------



## Jeff Wilder (May 5, 2010)

coyote6 said:


> RPGs are not Kevin Bacon
> RPGs are not back bacon
> RPGs are not bacon bits
> RPGs are not croutons
> ...



You need to switch to Bing®, the Decision Engine.


----------



## Odhanan (May 5, 2010)

Oryan77 said:


> RPGs are ... fun.
> 
> That's all I need



Ultimately? We agree, absolutely.


----------



## Imaginary Number (May 5, 2010)

Odhanan said:


> The question of what an RPG is and is not is central to this topic, and I deliberately avoided any attempt at a definition. If there is such a thing, it is what remains once you strip RPGs from any reference to other media, in my mind. What that would be, is a good question indeed. I'm not sure I have an answer to that.




I'm not sure you're going to get a good answer to that question without reference to other media, either.  Without reference to other media, your definition of a RPG will be something very abstract and bloodless like "people who sit around pretending to do things based on a given set of rules that governs what happens when they pretend to do things."  The content comes from whatever other media or genre the particular RPG is attempting to emulate.


----------



## Diamond Cross (May 5, 2010)

An rpg can be....

Rocket Powered Gun
Really Playful Girl
Randomly Paired Guys
Rambunctiously Patriotic Girls
Recently Paraded Girls
Radio Passenger Gondola
Rich Patient Galore
River Pass Guards
Repeat Past Grievance
Raised Permanent Goods

So on and so forth.

In short, this is why I don't like acronyms. Because they can mean what you want them to mean.


----------



## TerraDave (May 5, 2010)

hmm, this thread seems kind of negative.


----------



## Mallus (May 5, 2010)

Odhanan said:


> RPGs just remain bastard products, not a medium of their own.



What do you mean by a medium of their own? Works in most media are 'bastards'; people sing in movies, act in operas, stick sculptural bits to painted canvas, etc. This is commonplace. BTW, the sui generis thing about role-playing games is that they're _games_ where you play a person; you _are_ your game piece.

From my perspective, RPG's are most of the things on your list(s). Sometimes one more than another and frequently several at once. 

When I'm pushing my mini around the battle map, pondering tactics, and rolling dice like a Yahtzee-addict, an RPG is very much like a wargame. It resembles one, and, more importantly, the pleasure I get from the experience is the same as I do from non-RPG games.

Conversely, when I'm hamming it up as my PC, I might as well be up on stage, performing a (dorky, hyper-violent) bit of community theater. Again, this is how the experience _feels_.

I'm always aware of being the author of my characters during play. Embellishing them with (hopefully) clever bits, nudging the game's action towards (hopefully) interesting places. 

So I'm a little reluctant to give up comparisons that so accurately describe what it feels like I'm doing twice-monthly on Fridays nights...


----------



## ProtoClone (May 5, 2010)

So I guess I am at a loss for what you are trying to say then? Are you wanting a whole new vocabulary to further help make RPGs its own distinct genre of media? I thought they already were a category of media fun...games of the role playing variety.


----------



## Rechan (May 5, 2010)

Except that other forms of media exist, and are explained, by other forms of Media.

What's a play? A book, but instead of words on a page, it's people reading them aloud and acting the part of the characters. 
What's a movie? A play recorded and played back on a screen.
What's a TV show? A shorter form of a movie, with a story told in smaller increments. 
What's a comic book? It's like a book, but instead of words being the method the story is told, it is picture based, with dialog in word form. 

And lots of things about these forms of media can be said about other forms of media. The type of blocking and behavior in a play can correspond with what would work for a movie, for instance. And some things about them _cannot_ be said. A Good Movie may not be a Good Book (and vice versa), because the mediums focus on slightly different things. What works for a TV show may not work for a Movie because the TV show has longer time to develop characters, but the movie has a larger budget and must focus on the key points.


----------



## howandwhy99 (May 6, 2010)

For me and mine, RPGs are pattern finding games as identified in circa 1980.  

With all of what that entails.


----------



## Riposte (May 6, 2010)

My position is from someone who started with videogames and went to RPGs only years later. I wonder how this will turn out... Sorry if looks like a rant or something.

I see it as RPGs being a type of game. Just a game. (Though I didn't expect that could be pejorative!) That makes it participants active, as opposed to passive. So RPGs can't possibly be movies or literature or so on. To put it bluntly: "RPG" is not a medium. Similar to how basketball or chess are not media. They can certainly be represented and turned into media and they can feature media, but it isn't media while you are using it. This is enough to permanently distinct RPGs from novels or movies or anything else which only hold ideas and data, at least.

They certainly can't be videogames! It might not a board game, but I am not sure what isn't a board game quite exactly. I'll assume you mean something not like a wargame, since you also said card games.

Now Dungeon and Dragons has a wargame battle system ingrained in it. I'll get to rule 0(and games not like DnD) in a moment, but let us assume the DM doesn't just throw that away. So that means like Chainmail or Warhammer plays, we play it similar to strategic wargame which deals with things like position, movement, inventories, stats, etc things of strategic importance. If DnD stopped there then it would be a wargame, BUT we all certainly know that isn't the case. DnD seems to have some other element which sets it apart. We call this the "role-playing".

What exactly is role-playing? Well I've always tried to answer question in context with videogames("What is a videogame RPG?" "Why are these VERY different games(genre-wise) all labeled as RPGs?"). This had me distilling elements of tabletop games like DnD and unlike DnD for some common quality that can be used universally. For wargames and Real-Time-Strategy(and Turn-Based-Strategy) computer games which are based on their tabletop predecessors they both share(and their essence is made up of) that strategic battle system. I narrowed it down:

-It was not the fact the game had a story. After all almost(even the arcade games) videogames put enough detail to create a narrative of some kind. This can be applied with many board games and some card games. The stories in these tabletop games are going to be as simplistic as "Don't wake up dad while trying to sneak up to the fridge". This is kind of similar to early videogames and a few arcade games actually, if you can see a connection.

-It was not that the player talked to NPCs or talked with each other. This could be added to every type of videogame and it barely changed how the game is played. There are also versions of this which include "contains towns" or "shops". But again, these are not key factors in any type of game except games where you, like, run a shop or run a town!

-It was not the stats/levels/equipment or wargame strategy elements(This is what most people mean why they say "RPG elements" in videogame lexicon, btw). As I said those portions, "the crunch" as we would say here on enworld, come from DnD's wargame roots. (Videogame RPGs are certainly inspired by DnD. The early "dungeon-crawlers" were and "WRPGs" and "JRPGs" are two different evolutions on that concept.) We go out of our way to separate it from the "fluff" or the role-playing. And it should be said that DnD isn't the only RPG and not every RPG has a battle system inspired by Chainmail. Also "stats" are found in every videogame, period. They can change and progress in so many games even if those games do not call this "equipment" or "levels". e.g. Megaman, Devil May Cry, and Gradius. Not very good for making a distinction is it?

What stood out was the story, but not that it had a story... it was the way players interacted with the story. To talk about the "plot of a RPG" seems quite difficult. At the start of a game or session it hasn't even been written yet! At best the DM has a setting and he has non-playing characters who will react in certain ways. Someone might say "it is an interactive story", but that phrase is kind of silly. Stories can never be interactive. There is the storyteller and there are the listeners who completely passive. Rather than think of what a player does in terms of stories, I think of it in terms of them taking actions like any human does in real-life. Players act and the events which transpires only become stories if you look back at them. Only then is there a story. (Or a story-hour ) If you really want to use the word story, then I imagine it as collective story-writing... only that story often has no intention of being told.

Though this little reverse engineering I found DnD(I hope I don't bother anyone by constantly using this example... DnDe3-4 and Iron Heroes are my games!) to be a RPG because it contains this scenario-playground for players interact with. It is a hybrid game as it has a wargame to be the "rules" of the world(kind of like the laws of physics). I've never personally played them but from what I hear there are games without this type of battle system, they are RPGs for the same reason. Rule 0 can change everything about DnD(creating hundreds of versions of DnD just like there hundreds of different mods for videogames, some of which so drastic the videogame hardly looks similar), but the role-playing is there.

Now a DM might make the role-playing aspect as simple as possible. Restrict the players' freedom by railroading like crazy. Even if there is choices being made and "acting" being done, the DM might limit things to 2-3 possibilities as if he is reading from a simplified module. From this I gathered that there is a range of depth between each DMs' games. Some of them have deeper role-playing.(where choices have a more elaborate effect on the "plot" and where choices are more available). This is parallel to a game's reflexive(action videogames, sports) or strategic(strategy videogames, board games (eg Chess) range of depth.

This is why you should never think for a moment that videogames are overtaking the role of RPGs. No videogame has EVER gotten close to even some of the most simple DnD games concerning role-playing depth. If you see the WRPGs or WRPG-like games as steps ahead of other games, then you must admit that they are MILES behind the average DnD game. That is not even considering the real master GM/DMs we have here on enworld! I imagine it would require sentient AIs for videogames to catch up.

Of course this doesn't change how many people appreciate this and the fact more people play videogames as a whole. (It was certainly enough to get me, who has played an uncountable amount of videogames of every kind, to take notice.)

Hopefully I am not off-topic by this point.


----------



## Lanefan (May 6, 2010)

Odhanan said:


> RPGs are not "tales".
> RPGs are not "novels".
> RPGs are not "stories".
> 
> ...



With the possible exceptions of "movies" and "video games" (and a case could perhaps be made for even these) I respectfully disagree.

RPGs are all of the above and more.  Sometimes all at the same time!   Where's the problem?

Lan-"Random Particle Generator"-efan


----------



## cildarith (May 7, 2010)

coyote6 said:


> RPGs are not Kevin Bacon
> RPGs are not back bacon
> RPGs are not bacon bits
> RPGs are not croutons
> ...




RPGs are not acrobats.

*ahem* 

...sorry...


----------



## jaerdaph (May 7, 2010)

RPGs are not a video of *a monkey washing a cat*...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9wAqNN-Dic]YouTube - A Monkey Washing a Cat.[/ame]

...or ARE they?


----------



## Fifth Element (May 7, 2010)

cildarith said:


> RPGs are not acrobats.



Maybe at *your *table...


----------



## Celebrim (May 7, 2010)

ppaladin123 said:


> Platonism is scary.




Maybe, but what has that to do with the thread?  The OP's list making has far more in common with Aristotileanism.  Plato (or if Plato is to be trusted, Socrates) wouldn't attempt a definition by making a list.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (May 7, 2010)

jaerdaph said:


> RPGs are not a video of *a monkey washing a cat*...



That looks like an ape washing a cat, to me.  You trying to pull a fast one?


----------



## Celebrim (May 7, 2010)

Rechan said:


> Except that other forms of media exist, and are explained, by other forms of Media.
> 
> What's a play? A book, but instead of words on a page, it's people reading them aloud and acting the part of the characters.




But it's this sort of argument that almost convinces me to agree with the OP.

What's a play?  Not a book.  In fact, telling me what a book is helps me nothing with what a play is.  In the above statement, not only are your assertions about what a play is arguably and insufficiently inclusive (plays are rarely read, they are sometimes unscripted, and are sometimes silent), but the addition of telling me that it is like a book adds nothing to the idea of people talking and acting out the part of the characters. 

And similar things are true about the rest of your examples.



> And lots of things about these forms of media can be said about other forms of media.




I suspect that this is because they all belong to the same superclass.  They are all related.  But comparing child/inherited objects to another is fraught with danger.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 7, 2010)

cildarith said:


> RPGs are not acrobats.
> 
> *ahem*
> 
> ...sorry...




Hahaha. Sorry I gotta spread some around.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (May 7, 2010)

cildarith said:


> RPGs are not acrobats.
> 
> *ahem*
> 
> ...sorry...




I don´t know. Are they tarrying or running? Can you see that they are not soldiers by their haphazard way of walking?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 7, 2010)

RPGs are a field of pretty flowers that smell bad...because they are carnivorous, and the corpses rotting in their feeding chambers can raise such a stink.


----------



## Aeolius (May 7, 2010)

RPGs are Spellstitched Swarm-Shifter Dread Necromancer Emancipated Spawn Half-Scrag Sea Kin Lacedons with Aboleth Grafts... who pretend to be monkeys washing cats in a field of corpse flowers.


----------



## maddman75 (May 7, 2010)

RPGs are games where the players share an imagined narrative, the results of events of which are determined by the mechanics of the rules.  This is the charm, when the detective tries to sneak up on the suspected killer, we refer to rules to determine if he's successful.  I disagree with most of your items, and here's why.



Odhanan said:


> RPGs are not "tales".
> RPGs are not "novels".
> RPGs are not "stories".




They certainly create tales and stories, which are events happening to imagined people.  That we use rules to determine how those events play out is not relevent, or mean that the games are not stories or tales.

I'm with you on novels, as novels are  non-collaborative and written rather than being played out by a group.  But as pointed out, I don't think anyone has claimed RPGs are novels.



> RPGs are not "wargames".
> RPGs are not "board games".
> RPGs are not "video games".
> RPGs are not "card games".




No, though many of them share elements from those.  A game that features lots of tactical combat may share elements from wargames or board games.  Some use cards in their mechanics, but the play is not the main emphasis but the imagined events.  Video games only get close with stuff like DDI or online play.



> RPGs are not "movies".
> RPGs are not "thesis".
> RPGs are not "studies".
> RPGs are not "experiments".




Again, most of these are true, though the first three fall into the category of 'RPGs are not a monkey washing a cat'.  Don't know anyone has claimed that they are.

And I've certainly experimented with RPGs.  What happens when I put in this house rule?  What if I introduce this new rule concept?  What if we did this other thing completely differently?  Nothing wrong with experimentation.



> RPGs are not "campaigns".
> RPGs are not "chronicles".
> RPGs are not "modules".
> RPGs are not "books".[/qutoe]
> ...


----------



## Ourph (May 7, 2010)

Odhanan said:


> RPGs are not "tales".
> RPGs are not "novels".
> RPGs are not "stories".
> 
> ...



RPGs can be any of those things while, at the same time, still being RPGs.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 7, 2010)

maddman75 said:


> I tell people its a mix of improvisational theatre and double entry accounting.  Prove me wrong, I dare you.



_Accountants do it double-entry style._

Actually, yours is not too bad a way of describing it.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 8, 2010)

Two things must ye know of the roleplaying game!

First, it is a game!!!

And second.............

" There is roleplaying?"

Oh, you do know it then.


----------



## catsclaw227 (May 8, 2010)

RPGs make me sing. 
RPGs make me dedicate hours and hours of my week prepping for them and I am glad for it.
RPGs aren't bacon, but their just as tasty.
RPGs are my Mother's Excuse For Why I am Quirky.
RPGs have been my most creative outlet since I was 12.
RPGs are awesome.


----------



## Wormwood (May 8, 2010)

catsclaw227 said:


> RPGs make me sing.
> RPGs make me dedicate hours and hours of my week prepping for them and I am glad for it.
> RPGs aren't bacon, but their just as tasty.
> RPGs are my Mother's Excuse For Why I am Quirky.
> ...




"You have given out too many experience points in the last 24 hours, please try again later."


----------



## baradtgnome (May 8, 2010)

Odhanan said:


> ....
> RPGs are not made of "chapters".
> Or "scenes". Or "story arcs". Or "plots".




I wonder if there is a thread in forums about books, movies, video games, TV shows, etc that argue that they are not 'plots'.  This seems to me being oversensitive.  What is wrong with an RPG having a plot?  Or being organized into chapters.  There are some very fine novels that have chapters and writers don't seem to be threatened by that fact.

I concede that RPGs may have some variability in how they are perceived but to me that is a strength not a weakness.  So what if the blind men perceive the elephant differently, does that diminish the elephant?  I guess I am not troubled so much as the OP.


----------



## baradtgnome (May 8, 2010)

coyote6 said:


> ....
> RPGs are not bacon bits
> ....



 but RPGs are better with bacon, well, because everything is better with bacon.


----------



## amerigoV (May 8, 2010)

Odhanan said:


> RPGs are not "tales".
> RPGs are not "novels".
> RPGs are not "stories".
> 
> ...




In honor of Simplicity

A group of RPGs head by. They are not noveling or storying. Nor are they experimenting. They don't seem to be making campaigns. As far as you can tell, they're not talking about modules. They neither have movies nor stilts. These RPGs are not chronicles. They have no expression as they don't dally to the card game.


----------



## Quantarum (May 8, 2010)

The only absolute I keep in mind regarding RPGs is that they are all shared experiences. -Q.


----------



## Umbran (May 8, 2010)

catsclaw227 said:


> RPGs make me sing.




I see it now, the nWoD game, Glee: the Crooning


----------



## WayneLigon (May 9, 2010)

Odhanan said:


> RPGs are not "tales".
> RPGs are not "novels".
> RPGs are not "stories".
> 
> ...




They can emulate any and all of those things - sometimes well, sometimes poorly.



Odhanan said:


> RPGs are not made of "chapters".
> Or "scenes". Or "story arcs". Or "plots".




Kind of at a loss as to how you can run an RPG that doesn't have at least one of those.


----------



## Lord Xtheth (May 9, 2010)

Odhanan said:


> RPGs are not "tales".
> RPGs are not "novels".
> RPGs are not "stories".
> 
> ...



RPGs are not "Role Playing Games"
RPGs are Rocket Propelled Grenades!

The games that I play with my friends, they are a means to have fun and interesting times. They are great times and great experiences. The games I run ARE pretty Novel, they are Stories, campaigns, modules, etc.
My friends and I enjoy every type of game we play, regardless of how we perceive the game to be played.



			
				SWSE game said:
			
		

> Me: "So, the droid deals 22 damage to you"
> Player: "I use a Destiny point to not die"
> Me: Your stunt double goes flying off into the scenery on fire, and you get back onto the set at 1 HP



(Proof that games CAN be movies)

Games can be anything you want them to be, restricting them to any one thing in the name of "RPGs are THIS" leads to less fun, IMHO.


----------



## The Shaman (May 10, 2010)

WayneLigon said:


> Kind of at a loss as to how you can run an RPG that doesn't have at least one of those.



_E pur si muove._


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 10, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> _E pur si muove._




I must spread some XP around.


----------



## The Shaman (May 11, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> I must spread some XP around.



It's the thought that counts.


----------



## Imaginary Number (May 11, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> _E pur si muove._




This is witty, if you understand Italian or have access to Wikipedia, but I'm not sure substantively where this gets you.  As someone who has a little bit of both, I'm not sure quoting Galileo gets you anywhere.  Given that many posters have disagreed with your premises, it seems to me that the burden is on you at this point to describe how it moves.  _Come_?


----------



## The Shaman (May 11, 2010)

Imaginary Number said:


> Given that many posters have disagreed with your premises, it seems to me that the burden is on you at this point to describe how it moves.



I don't feel a "burden" to anyone on these boards, *IN*.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 11, 2010)

Originally Posted by *Odhanan* 

 
_RPGs are not made of "chapters".
Or "scenes". Or "story arcs". Or "plots". _




WayneLigon said:


> Kind of at a loss as to how you can run an RPG that doesn't have at least one of those.






Imaginary Number said:


> This is witty, if you understand Italian or have access to Wikipedia, but I'm not sure substantively where this gets you. As someone who has a little bit of both, I'm not sure quoting Galileo gets you anywhere. Given that many posters have disagreed with your premises, it seems to me that the burden is on you at this point to describe how it moves. _Come_?




While I cannot speak for The Shaman or his game, what I can do is provide an overview of how my game moves. 

Chapters, scenes, story arcs, & plots oh my! 

Each player creates and plays a character within a fantasy world. These characters have goals, desires, and needs. 

The DM plays the role of that world and everything/everyone in it except the characters played by the players. 

The player characters encounter elements of the game world and react in whatever manner suits them. Interaction with these elements result in adventures. 

NPC's also have goals,desires, and needs. These sometimes come into conflict with those of the players and the players deal with these conflicts during play. 

Chapters?  Nope. Not a book. There is no need to subdivide the campaign into manageable chunks of a certain size and scope. 

Scenes? Not really. The PC's may choose to "make a scene" in a public place if they so desire and NPC's likewise of course. 

Story arcs? The action moves primarily around the PC's and thier activities. If there were any story arcs then it would be up to the players to write them and then try and make them happen. 

Plots? Certainly. It seems that everyone in the game world has these based on the aforementioned goals desires and needs including the PC's. 

I do not feel at all burdened to share this approach but it might aid in understanding.


----------



## Desdichado (May 11, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> I don't feel a "burden" to anyone on these boards, *IN*.



In that case, it wasn't witty, it was merely snarky.


----------



## Hussar (May 11, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Originally Posted by *Odhanan*
> 
> 
> _RPGs are not made of "chapters".
> ...




Totally with you so far.


> Chapters?  Nope. Not a book. There is no need to subdivide the campaign into manageable chunks of a certain size and scope.




Really?  You never write an adventure?  A scenario based on the likely actions your players will take?  Never run a module?  All of those things look surprisingly like chapters.  



> Scenes? Not really. The PC's may choose to "make a scene" in a public place if they so desire and NPC's likewise of course.




Deliberately misinterpreting the definition of a word is not helpful.  Again, unless every encounter you run is nothing but ad libbed random encounters, you have to design in scenes.  Have you ever keyed a map?  Then you have scenes. 



> Story arcs? The action moves primarily around the PC's and thier activities. If there were any story arcs then it would be up to the players to write them and then try and make them happen.




Do your NPC's have no goals or timelines?  Unless everything in your world is absolutely static until such time as the PC's interact with it, then you have story arcs.  Baron Von Badass is attempting to seize the crown is a story arc whether you like it or not.



> Plots? Certainly. It seems that everyone in the game world has these based on the aforementioned goals desires and needs including the PC's.
> 
> I do not feel at all burdened to share this approach but it might aid in understanding.




If you have plots, and characters, then you have stories.  That's all it takes.  You have every element a story needs - character, plot, setting.  Trying to claim that your game has none of these things is pretty self-contradictory.


----------



## billd91 (May 11, 2010)

Lord Xtheth said:


> SWSE game said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




That reminds me of *It Came from the Late, Late, Late Show* RPG. PCs could call for their stunt double. Awesome game.


----------



## Desdichado (May 11, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Chapters?  Nope. Not a book. There is no need to subdivide the campaign into manageable chunks of a certain size and scope.



Wait... so, your game isn't run in sessions?  Do you have some kind of continuous gaming paradigm going on?  Play by post or something? 







			
				Exploder Wizard said:
			
		

> Scenes? Not really. The PC's may choose to "make a scene" in a public place if they so desire and NPC's likewise of course.



That seems like a needlessly pedantic nitpick.  If you don't have scenes, then nothing actually happens in your game.  Or; there's no pacing control.  Everything happens in realtime.  You never fast-forward to the exciting stuff.  A random encouner in the wilderness would be, for instance, a "scene."  Without scenes, you have to play out the entire journey.  Every step of the way.

I don't think you really mean that there's no scenes.  I think you're distorting the meaning of the word beyond common usage to advance some kind of pro-sandbox agenda.

Of course games have scenes.  Of course they have sessions (which may or may not resemble chapters or episodes to some degree or another.)  Even the most sandboxish game I can possibly imagine would be impossible to run otherwise. 


			
				Exploder Wizard said:
			
		

> Story arcs? The action moves primarily around the PC's and thier activities. If there were any story arcs then it would be up to the players to write them and then try and make them happen.



That doesn't make them "not story arcs."


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 11, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Chapters?  Nope. Not a book. There is no need to subdivide the campaign into manageable chunks of a certain size and scope.



As Hobo says, a session is analogous to a chapter. Another popular one these days is to think of sessions as episodes, and overarching plots as season arcs. In a game based on superhero comics it might be appropriate to think of sessions as issues. I don't do this btw but I don't regard it as a crazy view, or as 'not a rpg'.



> Scenes? Not really. The PC's may choose to "make a scene" in a public place if they so desire and NPC's likewise of course.



The climax of Tomb of Horrors, a very linear adventure, is when the demi-lich skull rises up and starts sucking souls. That's a scene, and a dramatic one too. And I don't mean 'scene' in the hippy sense of 'quite a scene, man'. Though it would be that, too.



> Story arcs? The action moves primarily around the PC's and thier activities. If there were any story arcs then it would be up to the players to write them and then try and make them happen.



GDQ is a story arc. It's a story arc as it is written, the story is clear in the text, before the PCs ever interact with it.



> Plots? Certainly. It seems that everyone in the game world has these based on the aforementioned goals desires and needs including the PC's.



In the Temple of Elemental Evil, collecting the gems to place in the Orb of Golden Death is a plot. As are similar 'collect the set' MacGuffins - there are several in the 1e DMG, such as the Rod of Seven Parts and The Teeth of Dahlver-Nar. These are plots because the future events - the PCs collect one part, then another and so forth - are right there in the text.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 11, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Really? You never write an adventure? A scenario based on the likely actions your players will take? Never run a module? All of those things look surprisingly like chapters.




A non-scripted scenario can never be based entirely on likely actions the PC's might take. I have to base plans of action
for NPC's based on what they know. Depending on the situation the outlined scenario might feature
the NPC's anticipating and setting up counters for specific types of interference to being completely ignorant of the PC's at all.  I am using a module in my current game [2E Return to the Keep on the 
Borderlands converted to 4e]. The scenario outlines actions that NPC's plan to take and how these actions may differ if the PC's become involved. 




Hussar said:


> Deliberately misinterpreting the definition of a word is not helpful. Again, unless every encounter you run is nothing but ad libbed random encounters, you have to design in scenes. Have you ever keyed a map? Then you have scenes.




It was not a misinterpretation, it was one possible definition. How does keying a map= writing a scene? If I say that Area 5 on the map is the lair of a hungry owlbear, what makes that fact alone a scene? Area 5 only becomes a scene or setting if the players interact with it. The players may give area 5 the old right hand wave and never explore it.
 Area 5 contains what it contains. It is not random.  



Hussar said:


> Do your NPC's have no goals or timelines? Unless everything in your world is absolutely static until such time as the PC's interact with it, then you have story arcs. Baron Von Badass is attempting to seize the crown is a story arc whether you like it or not.




 Yes. NPC's have goals, tactics and resources used to acheive these goals, and sometimes these goals are time sensitive. A plot and a 
timeline do not equal a story arc. The missing component is the players and their actions. Baron Von Badass attempting to seize
the throne is a plot being hatched by the Baron. A story arc by definition spans something and assumes activity and involvement by the PC's. 
The purpose of a story arc is to move characters from one state to another. If the players are responsible for that movement then it cannot
be written into a pre-defined arc. 




Hussar said:


> If you have plots, and characters, then you have stories. That's all it takes. You have every element a story needs - character, plot, setting. Trying to claim that your game has none of these things is pretty self-contradictory.




The end product of play does not have to equal the purpose of it. 



Hobo said:


> Wait... so, your game isn't run in sessions? Do you have some kind of continuous gaming paradigm going on? Play by post or something?




It certainly is. Does a game session have to equal a chapter? Last session we ended in the middle of tense action during a brief pause. Next session we will pick up right there. 



Hobo said:


> That seems like a needlessly pedantic nitpick. If you don't have scenes, then nothing actually happens in your game. Or; there's no pacing control. Everything happens in realtime. You never fast-forward to the exciting stuff. A random encouner in the wilderness would be, for instance, a "scene." Without scenes, you have to play out the entire journey. Every step of the way.
> I don't think you really mean that there's no scenes. I think you're distorting the meaning of the word beyond common usage to advance some kind of pro-sandbox agenda.
> Of course games have scenes. Of course they have sessions (which may or may not resemble chapters or episodes to some degree or another.) Even the most sandboxish game I can possibly imagine would be impossible to run otherwise.




Given the various definitions of scene, then  yes in the sense of a locale. 



Hobo said:


> That doesn't make them "not story arcs."




A story arc has a targeted end point. The DM cannot predict or write the players part and the players cannot predict or write the DM's part. The whole point of a story arc is to map the flow of the story to it's desired conclusion. A game does not have a known desired conclusion and thus the arc has no endpoint. This is a device useful for
fiction, not gameplay.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 11, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> A story arc has a targeted end point.



Does it? Or does it have several targeted beginnings (the starting points for the adventures that make up the arc) and several routes whereby the players might reach those beginnings. Plus some cool scenes the GM prods, but doesn't force, the PCs towards.



> The scenario outlines actions that NPC's plan to take and how these actions may differ if the PC's become involved.



Sounds like a plot.



> Does a game session have to equal a chapter? Last session we ended in the middle of tense action during a brief pause. Next session we will pick up right there.



So you ended your chapter on a cliffhanger? Nice storytelling.


----------



## coyote6 (May 11, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> A story arc has a targeted end point. The DM cannot predict or write the players part and the players cannot predict or write the DM's part. The whole point of a story arc is to map the flow of the story to it's desired conclusion.




I disagree, with respect to RPGs. For me, a story arc in an RPG campaign might be "Lelenia discovers the truth about her heritage" or "Mel deals with her father's murderer." In the former case, I did know the end point, as I knew what Lelenia's heritage was; I didn't know most of the middle, as that was highly dependent on the PCs' actions. I had some possibilities in mind, some of which worked their way into the action, some of which didn't. 

In the latter case, I had no idea how it would end, as I had no idea what the player or PC would choose to do upon learning her mother was secretly a crazed nobility-and-fame-hungry, Grazzt-worshipping witch. (I didn't even know if she'd find that out, really. I think they were a couple more failed saves vs. charm effects from a Total Party Charm, anyways.  )

Indeed, having watched all of the X-Files, I am confident that "story arc" doesn't necessarily equate to "targeted end point" in television writing, either. You might start an arc, with no end in mind, just to see where it goes. You might start an arc with an end in mind, and have it change as things go along. Because, as you point out, you can't perfectly predict an RPG session; stuff happens. But stuff happens in TV, movies, and writing, too, so it isn't totally dissimilar.



> A game does not have a known desired conclusion and thus the arc has no endpoint. This is a device useful for fiction, not gameplay.




But some games do have known desired conclusions; if the premise of an RPG campaign is that the PCs are trying to overthrow the Evil Tyrant and Restore Liberty and Justice to the People, then there is a desired conclusion -- victory over ET, and RLJP. Whether or not that desire is met is a question, and _how_ it goes down is another (and perhaps the most interesting).

So while it might not be a useful device for your gameplay, but I don't think it's true for all games, everywhere.


----------



## Desdichado (May 11, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> It certainly is. Does a game session have to equal a chapter? Last session we ended in the middle of tense action during a brief pause. Next session we will pick up right there.



:shrug:  I've read plenty of novels that had chapters end of cliffhangers routinely.  In fact, it's even a suggested technique for writers of thrillers.

That's neither here nor there, though: you said that your game can't be divided up into discrete units.  Unless you've got some kind of Pbp continuous play paradigm, I think that's clearly false: a session is a discrete unit.  And if so, then taking exception to likening a session to a chapter is just semantics.


			
				Exploder Wizard said:
			
		

> Given the various definitions of scene, then  yes in the sense of a locale.



It almost seems as if you're picking a needlessly constrained interpretation of the word for no reason other than to demonstrate how sandboxy your game is.  If you have a keyed location, it's a scene.  You've got a setting, you've got things that could happen, and things for the PCs to interact with.  The end effect of this is that it's a scene.  I can't think of any compelling reason to insist that it isn't a scene, other than that you take exception to the artsy-fartsy Thespianism or something implied in that choice of word.


			
				Expploder Wizard said:
			
		

> A story arc has a targeted end point. The DM cannot predict or write the players part and the players cannot predict or write the DM's part. The whole point of a story arc is to map the flow of the story to it's desired conclusion. A game does not have a known desired conclusion and thus the arc has no endpoint. This is a device useful for fiction, not gameplay.



Again with the needlessly constrained interpretation!  Why does a story arc have to be have a targeted endpoint?  According to who?  Again, it feels as if you're rejecting the terminology just because it came from fiction rather than because it doesn't accurately describe what happens in game.

There's a reason that people use terminology from film, TV, stage, and novel-writing to apply to their RPGs.  Because they're essentially _the same things._  When we've got waterfowl that quack and flap, and water runs off their backs, why wouldn't we call them ducks?  And if we do, why do the usual suspects have to show up and argue that, no, in reality they must be mutant albino penguins, because ducks and RPGs just do. not. mix.


----------



## The Shaman (May 11, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> As Hobo says, a session is analogous to a chapter. Another popular one these days is to think of sessions as episodes, and overarching plots as season arcs. In a game based on superhero comics it might be appropriate to think of sessions as issues. I don't do this btw but I don't regard it as a crazy view, or as 'not a rpg'.



Chapters, scenes, and episodes are characterized by rising and falling action, plot progression, and so on. They're discrete parts of a story, deliberately chosen by the author and editor.

Compare that to, "Okay, it's eleven o'clock, let's stop here and pick up here again next week." That's not a chapter or an episode, unless you believe a writer simply inserts a new chapter heading every thirty pages regardless of what's going on in the story.







Doug McCrae said:


> The climax of Tomb of Horrors, a very linear adventure, is when the demi-lich skull rises up and starts sucking souls. That's a scene, and a dramatic one too.



Tournament module, and one specifically not recommended for on-going campaigns, if I remember correctly.

And I've neither played it nor run it, by the way.







Doug McCrae said:


> GDQ is a story arc. It's a story arc as it is written, the story is clear in the text, before the PCs ever interact with it.



So anytime locations are linked by a common purpose, that's automatically a story arc? I don't think so.







Doug McCrae said:


> In the Temple of Elemental Evil, collecting the gems to place in the Orb of Golden Death is a plot. As are similar 'collect the set' MacGuffins - there are several in the 1e DMG, such as the Rod of Seven Parts and The Teeth of Dahlver-Nar. These are plots because the future events - the PCs collect one part, then another and so forth - are right there in the text.



I think the definitions of a plot, a scene, _et al_, are being stretched to ridiculous lengths by some in this thread in an effort to prove . . . what, exactly? That those of us who don't write discrete adventures, who eschew conceits related to what we perceive to be a very different medium, are wrong about how we conceive our own games?

As far as citing the examples of modules, I'll ask the same question I did in another thread where EGG was cited as being in favor of fudging: so what? I don't run modules; in fact, I never owned, played in, nor ran _ToEE_ or _ToH_, and neither the Teeth of Dahlver-Nar nor the Rod of Seven Parts ever appeared in any game I ran.

And I find the idea that because an artifact is composed of multiple parts it automatically presumes that some sort of plot is inherent to their use to be the most bizarre definitional stretch of all. A referee could plug one tooth into a treasure horde and leave it at that if she chooses without any assumptions at all about the other teeth.

Perhaps most importantly this "appeal to Gygax" presumes that my goal is to play all roleplaying games the way that EGG advocates. I have tremendous respect for EGG, and I appreciate the games he wrote, but _D&D_ isn't my favorite game by any stretch of the imagination, nor is my approach to gaming solely predicated on "how Gary did it."


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 11, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> As Hobo says, a session is analogous to a chapter. Another popular one these days is to think of sessions as episodes, and overarching plots as season arcs. In a game based on superhero comics it might be appropriate to think of sessions as issues. I don't do this btw but I don't regard it as a crazy view, or as 'not a rpg'.




Well, if you are writing the arc for season two and the arc begins with all the characters from season 1, set to go but play is still
going on in season 1 then I would say that you might have some good roleplaying going on but hardly a game. 



Doug McCrae said:


> The climax of Tomb of Horrors, a very linear adventure, is when the demi-lich skull rises up and starts sucking souls. That's a scene, and a dramatic one too. And I don't mean 'scene' in the hippy sense of 'quite a scene, man'. Though it would be that, too.




The skull in the chamber is indeed quite a scene (locale definition). The sequence of action definition cannot be applied if there is a game taking place. 



Doug McCrae said:


> GDQ is a story arc. It's a story arc as it is written, the story is clear in the text, before the PCs ever interact with it.




It is a complex multi-part plot unless the activities of the PC's are dictated or assumed, then it is a story arc. 


Doug McCrae said:


> In the Temple of Elemental Evil, collecting the gems to place in the Orb of Golden Death is a plot. As are similar 'collect the set' MacGuffins - there are several in the 1e DMG, such as the Rod of Seven Parts and The Teeth of Dahlver-Nar. These are plots because the future events - the PCs collect one part, then another and so forth - are right there in the text.




My memory on TOEE is a bit fuzzy. Is collecting the gems the plot or the means used enact the plot?


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 11, 2010)

coyote6 said:


> But some games do have known desired conclusions; if the premise of an RPG campaign is that the PCs are trying to overthrow the Evil Tyrant and Restore Liberty and Justice to the People, then there is a desired conclusion -- victory over ET, and RLJP. Whether or not that desire is met is a question, and _how_ it goes down is another (and perhaps the most interesting).




Quite so. I will rephrase desired conclusion to _known _conclusion. As long as resolution remains an unknown quality until revealed in play the game remains a part of rpg.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 11, 2010)

_Own_ the words. Make them _yours_. We're talking about games here. If you think someone is using a word in a derogatory manner, embrace that word and subvert their misguided attempt at superiority!

_*Yes, I am a railroader. What of it?*_

That sort of thing.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 11, 2010)

Hobo said:


> :shrug: I've read plenty of novels that had chapters end of cliffhangers routinely. In fact, it's even a suggested technique for writers of thrillers.
> 
> That's neither here nor there, though: you said that your game can't be divided up into discrete units. Unless you've got some kind of Pbp continuous play paradigm, I think that's clearly false: a session is a discrete unit. And if so, then taking exception to likening a session to a chapter is just semantics.
> 
> ...




I don't see how choosing the appropriate definition of a word used to clarify context counts as a constrained concept. 
When I refer to a scene it makes sense to clarify which type of scene is meant. 
Scene as a setting or location is accurate. Scene as a specific sequence of events is not.


----------



## coyote6 (May 11, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> When I refer to a scene it makes sense to clarify which type of scene is meant.
> Scene as a setting or location is accurate. Scene as a specific sequence of events is not.




Myself, when I use (or see) terms like chapter, episode, scene, arc, etc., used in relation to RPGs, I tend to use a looser definition. So, if I say "scene", I mean something more like "a sequence of events in some particular location, at some particular time", not "a specific predetermined sequence of events". 

Thus, if I refer (in preparation for the game, or whenever) to the "scene at the Duke's ball", I don't _know_ what events are going to go on there. I might plan what the NPCs will do, sans intervention; I might try to figure out what the PCs will do (I'm GMing for people I've known for 20 years, so I can often guess fairly well); I might even be pretty dang sure about how it will likely play out. But I don't _know_ for sure.

And it's still a scene to me.

(Then again, when I wrote stories for creative writing classes, I didn't always know how a story would end when I was writing it, either.)


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 11, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> As far as citing the examples of modules, I'll ask the same question I did in another thread where EGG was cited as being in favor of fudging: so what? I don't run modules; in fact, I never owned, played in, nor ran _ToEE_ or _ToH_, and neither the Teeth of Dahlver-Nar nor the Rod of Seven Parts ever appeared in any game I ran.
> 
> Perhaps most importantly this "appeal to Gygax" presumes that my goal is to play all roleplaying games the way that EGG advocates. I have tremendous respect for EGG, and I appreciate the games he wrote, but _D&D_ isn't my favorite game by any stretch of the imagination, nor is my approach to gaming solely predicated on "how Gary did it."



I agree with you, they were just examples. I deliberately chose those specific ones because they're familiar to many and also old school. Personally I think what Gary thought and the way he played is almost completely irrelevant. Everyone who plays rpgs has to find their own way of pretending to be an elf.



> And I've neither played it nor run it, by the way.So anytime locations are linked by a common purpose, that's automatically a story arc? I don't think so.I think the definitions of a plot, a scene, _et al_, are being stretched to ridiculous lengths by some in this thread in an effort to prove . . . what, exactly? That those of us who don't write discrete adventures, who eschew conceits related to what we perceive to be a very different medium, are wrong about how we conceive our own games?



I fully admit that the story analogy works better for some people's games than for others. For a DM running the Dragonlance modules with strong reference to the novels, it works well. Equally it works for a Forge-y narrativist game, such as Sorcerer. These games, I believe from what I've been told, have a laser-like focus on dramatic decision points such as "Will Elendil the half-elf side with the elves or the humans?" The players' decisions are left open, so the games are not 'forced', they do not restrict the players' significant choices, in the way that a railroaded Dragonlance game would.

That said I think that I could look at the prep work for almost any rpg and point to what I could call scenes, plots and (if it was a campaign) story arcs. I appreciate that you find this terminology to be unhelpful in thinking about and describing your games and that you feel I'm stretching the meaning of these terms. I concede that I am using these terms in a broader sense than some do.


----------



## Hussar (May 12, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> I don't see how choosing the appropriate definition of a word used to clarify context counts as a constrained concept.
> When I refer to a scene it makes sense to clarify which type of scene is meant.
> Scene as a setting or location is accurate. Scene as a specific sequence of events is not.




So, in any given module, when it says, "When Monster X sees the party, it attacks", we're no longer playing an RPG?  Man, I don't think I've EVER played an RPG in thirty years.  After all, we have a location, we have a sequence of events, we have characters within it.

The only thing we don't have is the resolution.  Of course, scene does not require a resolution to still be a scene.  See Improv Acting if you think that's not true.


----------



## Desdichado (May 12, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> I don't see how choosing the appropriate definition of a word used to clarify context counts as a constrained concept.
> When I refer to a scene it makes sense to clarify which type of scene is meant.
> Scene as a setting or location is accurate. Scene as a specific sequence of events is not.






Hussar said:


> So, in any given module, when it says, "When Monster X sees the party, it attacks", we're no longer playing an RPG?  Man, I don't think I've EVER played an RPG in thirty years.  After all, we have a location, we have a sequence of events, we have characters within it.
> 
> The only thing we don't have is the resolution.  Of course, scene does not require a resolution to still be a scene.  See Improv Acting if you think that's not true.



This is how.  You're not choosing the appropriate definition of the word to clarify context, you're *rejecting* the appropriate definition of the word to muddle context and ... I dunno, put forward some kind of sandbox uber alles agenda?  You tell me.

I don't know how you can say you're choosing the appropriate definition through context when you're refusing to admit that the word even applies to your games.


----------



## Lanefan (May 12, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> The scenario outlines actions that NPC's plan to take and how these actions may differ if the PC's become involved.



Of course.  But once all those actions have been resolved (no matter how) you've built another piece of a story. 







> How does keying a map= writing a scene? If I say that Area 5 on the map is the lair of a hungry owlbear, what makes that fact alone a scene? Area 5 only becomes a scene or setting if the players interact with it. The players may give area 5 the old right hand wave and never explore it. Area 5 contains what it contains. It is not random.



It is written as a potential scene with potential actors.  It becomes an actual scene if the PCs blunder in there; the owlbears become actual actors either in this case or if they wander out of area 5 and meet the PCs elsewhere.







> Yes. NPC's have goals, tactics and resources used to acheive these goals, and sometimes these goals are time sensitive. A plot and a timeline do not equal a story arc. The missing component is the players and their actions. Baron Von Badass attempting to seize the throne is a plot being hatched by the Baron. A story arc by definition spans something and assumes activity and involvement by the PC's.



If the plot and timeline affect the game at all, they've become part of the arc.  Baron Badass hatches a plot to take the throne.  The party could get involved and try to stop him; they have lots of time but fail to pick up on the clues, and instead go off to bash some Ogres in the mountains. Meanwhile, old BB takes the throne - the first the party know of this is when they get back to civilization, because the borders are closed against them unless they pay a hefty acquisition tax that didn't exist when they left but has since been imposed by Baron - well, King now - Badass.  And now they've got to decide whether to deal with him, ignore him, accept him, or whatever - regardless, he's become part of the story.


> The purpose of a story arc is to move characters from one state to another. If the players are responsible for that movement then it cannot
> be written into a pre-defined arc.



True to some extent, but the further purpose of a story arc is to give the PCs a background behind what they do; to give their decisions and movements consequences and results, and to give them choices.  If they are presented with hooks for three different courses of action and choose one, that does not mean the other two disappear.







> It certainly is. Does a game session have to equal a chapter? Last session we ended in the middle of tense action during a brief pause. Next session we will pick up right there.



Great!

There's those DMs who really do try to have each session be a chapter, with something of a beginning, middle, climax, and end.  I am not one such.

But that doesn't mean there's no chapters.  Let's say you're running a 6-adventure story arc...wouldn't each adventure in effect represent a chapter?


> A story arc has a targeted end point. The DM cannot predict or write the players part and the players cannot predict or write the DM's part. The whole point of a story arc is to map the flow of the story to it's desired conclusion. A game does not have a known desired conclusion and thus the arc has no endpoint. This is a device useful for fiction, not gameplay.



I think you're assuming a bit too much structure in the "story arc" idea.  Sure, a story arc has a targeted end, but in a D+D game there's no saying the PCs will ever get there - they might give up on the quest halfway through, for example; or might get hooked into another story that better captures their interest; or could in fact be working on several intertwined stories at once!

And by the time they reach the "targeted end" of one story arc you should have them nicely hooked into at least the next two.  (assuming, of course, the campaign you're running is intended to be more than a single story arc in length)

Lanefan


----------



## The Shaman (May 12, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> Of course.  But once all those actions have been resolved (no matter how) you've built another piece of a story.



Okay, I'm not *EW*, but I'm going to take a hack at these.

I think most of us are trying to convey that "story" in the sense of the tale of the adventurers' exploits after they happen is different from "story" in the sense of planning a series of structured encounters or adventurers leading to a climax of some sort. The former is an emergent feature only recognizible as such after the events of the game transpire.

If I were a member of the Forge, I might draft a lengthy treatise on the properties of, "Story After!"







Lanefan said:


> It is written as a potential scene with potential actors.



If by "scene" you mean a place and its associated features and by "actor" you mean someone or something which does something, then I'd say you're using the words the same way I might in reference to a game.

If you're using "scene" in the sense of a subset of an act and "actor" as in someone playing a role, then no, that's not at all how I would use them.

This is one of the reasons, by the way, I've become very choosy about what words I'll use in describing my roleplaying game experiences. In another thread recently I talked about improvising, and someone else agreed but used an example of improvisation that I consider an anathema.







Lanefan said:


> If the plot and timeline affect the game at all, they've become part of the arc.



This again is predicated on how you're using "story arc." Is it the events of the game described after they occur, or is it part of the particpants' planning process for the game?

Frex, I suppose you could say that the last game I ran, _Traveller_, featured a 'story arc,' which was the experiences of the crew of merchanters trading between star systems. However, my 'planning' for the game consisted of rolling random encounters and skinning them to fit the setting. The game produced a story, but none of the events of that story were known in advance of actually playing the game.







Lanefan said:


> True to some extent, but the further purpose of a story arc is to give the PCs a background behind what they do; to give their decisions and movements consequences and results, and to give them choices.



The decisions and movements of the merchanters in my _Traveller_ game had consequences and results, and the players had a virtually unlimited palate of choices limited only by their resources, all played out against a richly detailed setting, and there was nary an adventure path or story arc to be found.

Once again, _e pur si muove_.







Lanefan said:


> Let's say you're running a 6-adventure story arc...wouldn't each adventure in effect represent a chapter?



Let's say you're running a game with no pre-planned adventures and no story arc . . . now how well does this apply?







Lanefan said:


> I think you're assuming a bit too much structure in the "story arc" idea.



I would argue the opposite: some are framing ideas like "story," "scene," and so forth way too loosely.

If I write something in my notes on a location like, "The guards at the gate to the _chateau_ will only admit those with business with Baron de Bauchery as evidenced by an invitation bearing his seal," it appears that some here are ready to exclaim, "See! You've created a scene, with characters, so that's a story!" It's getting pretty silly.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 12, 2010)

Hussar said:


> So, in any given module, when it says, "When Monster X sees the party, it attacks", we're no longer playing an RPG? Man, I don't think I've EVER played an RPG in thirty years. After all, we have a location, we have a sequence of events, we have characters within it.
> 
> The only thing we don't have is the resolution. Of course, scene does not require a resolution to still be a scene. See Improv Acting if you think that's not true.




Hardly. A "when" or "if" statement places a condition on certain actions and activities. The sequence of events is still unknown thus the scene is still within the setting context. IF monster X never sees the party, there is no attack.

The importance of open possibilities is the key. In a module, I don't need the author to tell me what is or is not a combat/ non-combat encounter. Previous actions and player decisions help determine that. No books to reference here right now. Later I will provide examples of the type of
crap I'm talking about in published adventures. 



Hobo said:


> This is how. You're not choosing the appropriate definition of the word to clarify context, you're *rejecting* the appropriate definition of the word to muddle context and ... I dunno, put forward some kind of sandbox uber alles agenda? You tell me.
> 
> I don't know how you can say you're choosing the appropriate definition through context when you're refusing to admit that the word even applies to your games.




What word are you speaking of? Scene applies in the setting context. Story arc only has meaning in the rearview mirror.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 12, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> In another thread recently I talked about improvising, and someone else agreed but used an example of improvisation that I consider an anathema.



Hi, The Shaman!

Anathema, really? When talking about games of imagination?

Anyway, that's a problem you'll run across if you use words that have a fairly broad meaning, such as improvising, in a very specific way.


----------



## The Shaman (May 12, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Anathema, really? When talking about games of imagination?



Yes, for me illusionism in roleplaying games is an anathema.







Fifth Element said:


> Anyway, that's a problem you'll run across if you use words that have a fairly broad meaning, such as improvising, in a very specific way.



My specific use for improvisation was clear from the context in which it was used.

Illusionism already has a name in gaming; calling it improvisation is obfuscation.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 12, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> Yes, for me illusionism in roleplaying games is an anathema.My specific use for improvisation was clear from the context in which it was used.



Oh, that's right. I was responding to the OP (in that thread), detailing techniques I use in the situation he was referring to (the topic of that thread). Since my post came immediately after yours and I used the word improvising, you assumed I was commenting on your post when I wasn't.


----------



## The Shaman (May 12, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Oh, that's right. I was responding to the OP (in that thread), detailing techniques I use in the situation he was referring to (the topic of that thread). Since my post came immediately after yours and I used the word improvising, you assumed I was commenting on your post when I wasn't.



What you described in your post subsequent to mine already has a name, and it's not "improvisation."


----------



## Fifth Element (May 12, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> What you described in your post subsequent to mine already has a name, and it's not "improvisation."



What I described fits the broad definition of "improvisation" in the English language. This was my point; if you use a very narrow definition of a word, you shouldn't be surprised when someone uses the word in its broader sense. There is no standard for descriptive RPG language, so just because a blogger calls it one thing doesn't mean I have to do it as well, or even agree that the term fits.


----------



## The Shaman (May 12, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> What I described fits the broad definition of "improvisation" in the English language. This was my point; if you use a very narrow definition of a word, you shouldn't be surprised when someone uses the word in its broader sense.



This insistence on using words in their "broader sense" seems to be the source of a lot of confusion and acrimony.

How 'bout we try for a little precision instead?







Fifth Element said:


> There is no standard for descriptive RPG language, so just because a blogger calls it one thing doesn't mean I have to do it as well, or even agree that the term fits.



There is a consensus around many of the terms used by gamers. Illusionism isn't the random invention of a lone blogger, and I think you've been knocking around different game forums long enough to know that. It's also a spot-on description of what you labeled "improvisation."


----------



## billd91 (May 12, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> This insistence on using words in their "broader sense" seems to be the source of a lot of confusion and acrimony.
> 
> How 'bout we try for a little precision instead?There is a consensus around many of the terms used by gamers. Illusionism isn't the random invention of a lone blogger, and I think you've been knocking around different game forums long enough to know that. It's also a spot-on description of what you labeled "improvisation."




Can we put a sock in this debate? There was nothing wrong with the term improvisation. We don't exactly have to appeal to obscure blogs hardly anyone has ever heard of to define our terms when English suffices.


----------



## Scribble (May 12, 2010)

"... Role playing games are much like radio adventures, except for one important detail: they're interactive. One player provides the narrative and some of the dialogue, but the other players, instead of just sitting and envisioning what's going on actually participate. Each player controls the actions of a character in the story, decides on his actions, supplies his character's dialogue, and makes decisions based on the characters personality and his current game options..."

-Dungeons & Dragons Rules Cyclopedia, 1991


Guess there's SOME precedence for calling it a story...

GURPS also calls it a story.


----------



## Celebrim (May 12, 2010)

billd91 said:


> Can we put a sock in this debate? There was nothing wrong with the term improvisation. We don't exactly have to appeal to obscure blogs hardly anyone has ever heard of to define our terms when English suffices.




While I think that if you are going to use improvisation to have a special meaning you should set out that special meaning and not quibble when someone uses the term according to its common usage, it's not like the term 'Illusionism' as it refers to designing and managing RPG's is itself obscure.  The fact that the blog that provides a definition of a peice of technical jargon is 'obscure' is simply an ad hominem attack on the blog.

That said, while 'Illusionism' is a well defined term of art, I know of no such special definition for 'Improvisation'.   Any time the term 'improvisation' is used, I would first assume the common usage of the word:

"the act of composing, performing or delivering without previous preparation"

Now interestingly, 'Illusionism' is not often 'Improvisation', but the two terms aren't mutually exclusive.  The technique Fifth Element describes seems to me like it is arguably both.   It is both composing and delivering without previous preparation, and it is altering the unpainted part of the world for metagame reasons in order to maintain the appearance of versimilitude, coherence, player agency, and/or player success where none actually exists.


----------



## Celebrim (May 12, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Guess there's SOME precedence for calling it a story...
> 
> GURPS also calls it a story.




While that's a great quote and I thank you for it, I think you are probably missing some of the nuance of what is being debated here.

The question is not whether there is a story, but what it comes from and in particular at what point in the game does the story come into being - before the session or after it?


----------



## Scribble (May 12, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> While that's a great quote and I thank you for it, I think you are probably missing some of the nuance of what is being debated here.
> 
> The question is not whether there is a story, but what it comes from and in particular at what point in the game does the story come into being - before the session or after it?




Maybe... 

I think it's both.

But in the end, it doesn't matter much to me, as it won't really effect my game.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 13, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> While I think that if you are going to use improvisation to have a special meaning you should set out that special meaning and not quibble when someone uses the term according to its common usage, it's not like the term 'Illusionism' as it refers to designing and managing RPG's is itself obscure.



I agree. I don't object to the characterization of my technique as illusionism; I object to the idea that it cannot also be called improvisation. As you rightly point out, it does fit both.



Celebrim said:


> and it is altering the unpainted part of the world for metagame reasons in order to maintain the appearance of versimilitude, coherence, player agency, and/or player success where none actually exists.



I wouldn't put it quite like that, though. Generally it's just because the player's idea was better than mine.

But we should probably leave this in the other thread where it started.


----------



## Hussar (May 13, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Maybe...
> 
> I think it's both.
> 
> But in the end, it doesn't matter much to me, as it won't really effect my game.




I think this is an interesting point.  Does it have to be mutually exclusive where the "story" arises in the game?  Is it not more true that story comes about at every point, from conception to the end of play?  Granted the story isn't "finished" until it happens at the table, but, most of the elements of the story are there even before play starts.

I mean, look at the Paizo Dungeon adventures.  Every module opened with a plot synopsis - what was the most likely chain of events in the given module.  If there is no story at all before play begins, how can you make any sort of synopsis of the story?


----------



## McTreble (May 13, 2010)

I've been singing the praises of RPGs (specifically DnD) for years and I actively avoid comparing the game to anything else, relishing with a glint in my eye and saying "It's not like anything you've ever played." Cause it's not.


----------



## Celebrim (May 13, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I think this is an interesting point.  Does it have to be mutually exclusive where the "story" arises in the game?




No, I don't think it does.  There are certainly tables that play with a story mostly composed before play.  (If you've played a published adventure path, you're one).  There are tables like The Shaman's where no story exists at all before hand.  There is a big continium in the middle.  And even in that continium, there might be alot of variation in how they achieve the mixture.  For example, one table might bounce back and forth between the two extremes, using entirely scenario/plot driven adventures on the one hand and agreeing to ride the rails, and then afterwards spend sessions improvising up a set of encounters starting from setting information alone.  Others may use a blend of the two, for example, setting up a detailed urban or wilderness setting and mostly sandboxing while integrating an event driven story line in the background as an overarching metaplot.  Others set up sandboxes with hooks, and players go and explore until they find a hook that sets off a series of preplanned events (alot of sandbox style cRPGs set up worlds more or less like that, and the PnP version works well too).



> ...but, most of the elements of the story are there even before play starts.
> 
> I mean, look at the Paizo Dungeon adventures.  Every module opened with a plot synopsis - what was the most likely chain of events in the given module.  If there is no story at all before play begins, how can you make any sort of synopsis of the story?




You can't.  And yet, as The Shaman insists, it still moves.  Published modules have particular constraints and have developed sets of expectations on the part of the buyers.  There are certain styles of games that you can't fit into a 32 or 64 page description.  By no means however does everyone play games that resemble published modules.


----------



## Hussar (May 13, 2010)

But, unless every element is 100% ad libbed at the table, you have to have a number of story elements in place before the game begins.  You need NPC's, most of those NPC's should have motivations and some means of achieving their goals, you need a setting and that setting should be dynamic enough that it is at the very least plausible.

So, what's missing from making this a story?  You have setting, you have at least the beginnings of plot.  About the only thing that isn't there is the character interactions.  Once those are added in, you have a story.

I just don't see how you could sit down to play a session without any story elements at all.  To me, it's an ongoing process, constantly being redefined as play progresses.  But, the idea that there is nothing at all before the players sit down at the table is very difficult for me to believe.


----------



## Celebrim (May 13, 2010)

Hussar said:


> But, the idea that there is nothing at all before the players sit down at the table is very difficult for me to believe.




Apparantly.

Just because you can't imagine it, doesn't mean it isn't possible.  It takes some discipline to do it, and a lot of talent to pull off something other than a row boat among the stars (where lots of actions take place, but none of it accomplishes anything) but I can at least see how it could be done.  Personally, I can't stomach more than a couple of sessions as a player, and find that I can't keep players entertained doing it for more than a session or two (because most players IME like to ride the railroad), but there are some real attractions to the approach in small doses and you should try it some time.

Well designed random tables help alot.

Try this:
0) Let the players determine thier own goals.  One good starting point is asking them were in the game world they want to start out.  Obviously, you need self-motivated players to manage this.
1) Randomly select an encounter with an NPC.  If its a humanoid, you'll need a random profession subtable appropriate to the race.
2) Randomly determine the creature's hostility level.  If the PC's interact, faithfully follow diplomacy rules for modifying creature hostility.  Don't decide whether the monster is an ally or an enemy.
3) Decide on the spot what the creature is doing here.  
4) Repeat.

If you do this long enough, the players ideally become immersed in the setting.  Typically, you end up with players who are scheming rather than thwarting schemes.  The PC wants to conduct a cattle drive, rob a bank, go on a crusade, organize a war party to plunder the tribe on the other side of the river, etc.  It puts the PC's in a position to be active rather than merely proactive.  As the DM, you've got no idea how the story is going to work out.  You don't prep a story.  You don't even prep NPC motivations.  You end up with something more like SimCity and less like 'Balder's Gate' or 'Knights of the Old Republic'.

I'm sure The Shaman can tell you more about the techniques than I can.  I only do this really for travel between hooks and plot points, but at one time this sort of emmergent story telling I considered nearly ideal.  (Since that time I've decided that it has a problem with story pacing.  I'm hoping this time to use hooks to drag players along a path until they get to the point they can sandbox.)


----------



## The Shaman (May 13, 2010)

billd91 said:


> Can we put a sock in this debate?



If you don't care for the discussion, then don't participate.


----------



## The Shaman (May 13, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> Now interestingly, 'Illusionism' is not often 'Improvisation', but the two terms aren't mutually exclusive.



Illusionism requires some element of improvisation, but improvisation doesn't require illusionism, in particular giving "the appearance of choice without its substance."

That's why I draw a bright line between the two. *5E* advocates choices without substance, which is about as far from the way I like to game as it gets.


----------



## The Shaman (May 13, 2010)

McTreble said:


> I've been singing the praises of RPGs (specifically DnD) for years and I actively avoid comparing the game to anything else, relishing with a glint in my eye and saying "It's not like anything you've ever played." Cause it's not.



I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Seriously, that nails it for me right there.


----------



## Hussar (May 13, 2010)

So, is this somethinglike like what you mean?

The Games We Play - The Choices You Made

In the chargen mini-game a series of images were chosen by each player to show either personal history or personal goals.  The campaign, while it does have an over arching plot, will incorporate that information allowing the players to pursue those goals and shared history.


----------



## LostSoul (May 13, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> 3) Decide on the spot what the creature is doing here.




You can use a random table for that, too.  Even the 4E DMG2 has a good one.


----------



## Imaginary Number (May 13, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> Illusionism requires some element of improvisation, but improvisation doesn't require illusionism, in particular giving "the appearance of choice without its substance."
> 
> That's why I draw a bright line between the two. *5E* advocates choices without substance, which is about as far from the way I like to game as it gets.




I'm still not sure I understand your definition of "illusionism," so please enlighten me if I'm not getting it.  The idea seems to describe a situation in which the DM has predetermined a result and nevertheless allows a player to believe that the player's actions somehow will affect that result.  If that's correct, I don't think you're fairly characterizing Fifth Element's approach -- picking up good ideas from players and running with them doesn't involve predetermining anything; the determination starts from the player's idea and goes from there.  But I'll let him pick up that particular cudgel if he's so inclined.

From a more broad perspective, I disagree with your definitional "bright line" because it obscures the wide variation in gaming styles that Celebrim describes very well above.  Some DMs like to run adventure paths with pre-written story arcs; some like to run a series of unlinked but pre-planned adventures; some like to allow the players to wander around the campaign world and see what happens as long as they let the DM know in advance where they're going (that's me; I'm not very good at improvising); some like to go full sandbox and have the players wander around as they will.  You seem to be suggesting that all approaches short of the "full sandbox" are bad because they involve "illusionism" somehow, and I don't think that's true.  Each approach involves meaningful player choice on some level -- the only difference is where the out-of-bounds lines are.


----------



## Celebrim (May 13, 2010)

Imaginary Number said:


> I'm still not sure I understand your definition of "illusionism," so please enlighten me if I'm not getting it.




Illusionism is when the DM makes something seem to happen that didn't.  

Some examples:

1) You come to a fork in the road, but the sign has fallen on the ground.  One way leads to the magical city, the other to the crypt of insanity.  The players choose left and go to the magical city, not because it was on the left, but because the DM has determined that the first fork taken always leads to the magical city.
2) You are in a fight with the BBEG.  Things seem desparate.  You are maybe a mere round from a TPK, when the one character with a good action scores a critical hit!  Everyone cheers, and the DM says, "You did it.  The BBEG slumps to the ground!"  The table goes crazy!  Only the DM knows that the BBEG still had 10 hit points remaining when he died.
3) You are in a murder mystery.  You suddenly realize the significance of an important clue - the Grand Vizor did it!  You chase the fiend to his secret laboratory, which turns out to be a fully outfited necromancer's lab complete with flesh golem.  In a grand fight, you dispatch the evil doer.  Only the DM knows that originally, the Grand Vizor was an innocent alchemist seeking after the philosopher's stone and the Queen Regent was the evil necromancer.  But the DM switched because he didn't want to dash the player's feeling of triumph.
4) You are fleeing from a collapsing tomb, jumping obstacles and dodging traps.  You dive out of the entrance at the last second just as a great stone slab seals the tomb forever.  The DM secretly delayed the collapse by two rounds to make up for your dithering because he didn't want to cause a TPK.



> If that's correct, I don't think you're fairly characterizing Fifth Element's approach -- picking up good ideas from players and running with them doesn't involve predetermining anything; the determination starts from the player's idea and goes from there.




Doesn't matter where the idea comes from.  If you are secretly retconning your intentions to enhance the story, you are engaged in illusionism.  The trouble with illusionism is that its alot like winning a game when you are a kid and then discovering that the person you played the game with let you win.  Some players are ok with that.  They will willingly participate in illusionism and will themselves to overlook it even when they suspect it is going on.  But alot of players do not want to ever believe, suspect, or find out that illusionism is going on.  



> You seem to be suggesting that all approaches short of the "full sandbox" are bad because they involve "illusionism" somehow, and I don't think that's true.  Each approach involves meaningful player choice on some level -- the only difference is where the out-of-bounds lines are.




Illusionism of any sort tends to make player choice meaningless in the long run.  Even when the player retains some degree of agency, that is, you are using the player's idea, when you engage in illusionism you've pretty much decided the outcome of the story for the player.  The player loses the oppurtunity to fail, which means that they've also lost the oppurtunity to succeed.  

Now, I'm not saying that illusionism is all bad, which might be your problem.  I think The Shaman is making choices to run a game with as little illusion as possible.  But certain kinds of scenarios are hard to run without some degree of illusionism, and a small amount of illusionism can provide alot of structure to a sandbox without significantly harming player agency (provided its being provided in fistfulls elsewhere).  At some level, almost every game involves some measure of illusionism.  In an adventure path, the GM tries to give the impression that the odds are always wildly stacked against the players, but in fact, the odds are usually really stacked heavily in the players favor so that success is the expected outcome.  In a sandbox, the GM tries to give the impression of a 'real world', but at the same time the PC's end up with the oppurtunity to live really interesting lives that in the real world 99.99% of all people don't have.  In other words, even the most grim and gritty sandboxes are almost always places to play, not places to work and perform monotonous repetitive tasks as they realisticly ought to be.


----------



## Imaginary Number (May 13, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> Illusionism is when the DM makes something seem to happen that didn't. ...
> 
> Doesn't matter where the idea comes from. If you are secretly retconning your intentions to enhance the story, you are engaged in illusionism.




Thanks for the very thougtful response to my post.  What I've quoted above, I think, is where we're diverging.  You're assuming that, when I create a scenario, I have intentions about how a given scenario works such that I can retcon the scenario when I feel like it and change the conditions of "winning."  But sometimes I don't.  Perhaps I decide to put a pack of ghouls in Room 5 of the Dungeon of Doom; I have no idea how many ghouls there are or why they're there when I write my initial notes other than that I want the party to fight ghouls, and perhaps a player suggests a really good reason why they're there in that number during the encounter that I haven't thought of before.  I'll then make some more notes to fill in some more detail in other encounters consistent with that reason.  This isn't retconning in the sense that I'm changing anything that's already been established; I'm creating in collaboration with the players.  I think that's a meaningful distinction that "illusionism" doesn't quite capture.


----------



## Hussar (May 13, 2010)

Celebrim, that's one of the best descriptions of "Illusionism" I've seen and goes a long way to explaining a lot of the disagreements that I have.  

Thanks for that.


----------



## The Shaman (May 13, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> Well designed random tables help alot.
> 
> Try this:
> 0) Let the players determine thier own goals.  One good starting point is asking them were in the game world they want to start out.  Obviously, you need self-motivated players to manage this.
> ...



That's actually a pretty good primer, *Celebrim*.

A couple of points:







Celebrim said:


> Well designed random tables help alot.



Yes, they do.

The _Mythic Game Master Emulator_ is a really exciting new approach to randomization in tabletop roleplaying games.

I don't generate all of my random encounters on the spot; I'll use the various tables and such to prepare lists of encounters before or between game-nights, then simply pull from the list of prepared encounters. For example, for the _Traveller_ game, I prepared a list of scout ship encounters; each time a random roll called for a scout ship, I'd just use the next one on the list, then replenish the list in the weeks between games. This keeps up the flow of the game, without breaks for lots of dice rolling, but still maintaining the stochastic nature of the game experience. The prepped material is the basis for improvising the actual encounter during the game, so in the case of a scout ship, a few different rolls give me some ideas about what it's doing and why, and I can ad lib from there.

This also makes prep fun, at least for me. It delivers unexpected results, which keeps the game (and the referee) from getting stuck in a rut.







Celebrim said:


> Let the players determine thier own goals.



I participated in a lengthy thread over at *Big Purple* a month or two ago about character backstories; in one of my posts, I wrote, "A character backstory should place less emphasis to what your character's done and more emphasis to what your character's going to do." Ideally the adventurers are driving the action in pursuit of their goals, and if it all goes really well, you end up with this:







Celebrim said:


> Typically, you end up with players who are scheming rather than thwarting schemes.



That's my gaming-nirvana right there. It's the players taking initiative, thinking through how their characters get from where they are now to where they want to be, using both player and character skills and resources in developing strategy and tactics.

Put another way, I'm not looking for player characters who want to uncover or join a conspiracy; I want _them_ to _be_ the conspirators.







Celebrim said:


> You don't even prep NPC motivations.



In some cases that's true; for my _Traveller_ game, I was dealing with a setting which includes multiple worlds with tens of billions of people, so other than a few notes about high-ranking Imperial nobles and such most likely to be mentioned in a _TAS_ newsfeed, NPC motivations were generated along with the encounters themselves.

For my _Flashing Blades_ game, however, folding historical figures into the game means I know quite a bit about the motivations of quite a few of the NPCs, so I would call this one somewhat conditional.


----------



## LostSoul (May 13, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> At some level, almost every game involves some measure of illusionism.




No.  No.  Not at all.  When players make meaningful choices, there is no illusionism.  A game that does not rob players of those choices does not have illusionism.



Celebrim said:


> In other words, even the most grim and gritty sandboxes are almost always places to play, not places to work and perform monotonous repetitive tasks as they realisticly ought to be.




Illusionsim has nothing at all to do with realism.

edit: Illusionsim is when players think they are making choices but in reality the outcome of those choices have been pre-determined by another player.  (Currency does not play into this.)

Contrast this with participationism, where players realize that the choices they make don't matter, but they are willing to go along for the ride.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 13, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> And yet, as The Shaman insists, it still moves.



Does it? Or does it need the players (or one player who leads the others) to push it?


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 13, 2010)

A key point at which prepared material becomes a plot is once you, the GM, imagine it interacting with the PCs in some way.

For example a PC has been established as a rake. So you create a beautiful woman who's secretly a spy for the English as a foil for him. Plot, right there. But it would also be plot even if no such PC exists. In fact even if no PCs exist yet. The character works as an NPC because it is likely that one or more PCs will be rakes, as you would expect in a Three Musketeers-esque milieu.

Or you create a dungeon containing treasure and rumours of said treasure in the neighbouring village. Plot. Because you can be practically certain that in a D&D game players will want treasure. Because that's how D&D works.

It could be said that all that's required for plot-hood is extension through time. In four months the orc armies will invade, if the PCs do nothing. In three weeks Mt Fury will erupt (pretty much no matter what the PCs do). But I think both the orc army and the volcano must occur in the PCs' vicinity, they must be relevant to the PCs, to become plots.


----------



## Wolf1066 (May 13, 2010)

My fourpence, standard disclaimers apply, YMMV etc...

I have a setting.  It's a reimagination of Night City - some things have changed (like I moved it to Australia, renamed some of the regions, put in different/new gangs etc).

That setting is full of *stories*.

There's "The Ripper" murdering prostitutes by slashing them up with Wolvers, there's "The Vampire" exsanguinating victims and leaving their drained, cleaned corpses in dumpsters, there are kids going missing, there are powerful corporate heads making power plays, there are all manners of other people going about their daily lives - legal and illegal.

A million stories in that dark, naked city.

All of which will continue happening without any intervention of the players at all.

Then we have the player characters, all with backgrounds that give them skills, advantages, disadvantages and little quirks -and all, until very recently, unemployed.  This is Cyberpunk: you don't meet in a bar, decide to trust each other and go off adventuring.  There has to be a reason for "the team" other than "hey there's a sign on the wall offering 1000GP for the safe return of the King's daughter, what say we band together and earn it?"

Now, there are many excuses for a team - they're all childhood friends etc. - but I wanted the players to be strangers to one another so they would have to *role play* getting to know one another and spend in-game time getting to know one another's strengths and weaknesses.

I also wanted them to be fish out of water, strangers in a strange land etc, so they would have to role play building up their local knowledge and their support networks.

So, this group of strangers are called together by the one thing they have in common - an employment broker - and assembled into a team at the behest of a new employer overseas in Australia.  That's the back-story I provided.

Given that the players have a choice of taking the job or not playing the game, the story has them flying to Australia to meet their new boss.

Now they are in a place where they will interact with the other stories that are going on.  How they decide to respond will determine a lot of what happens and how it happens.

Many of the people they encounter have their own stories and their own goals.  Which of those stories the players choose to get embroiled in will determine what is recorded of the players' personal stories.

Certain things will happen regardless of what they choose - certain things will happen wherever the characters happen to be at the time - outside the pub or the mall or their home or while they're on the way back into town - they'll come upon a story I've created and choose how they will respond to it.

Also, they are employed - and their employer will send them out on certain missions that will have "unexpected" twists that the players are going to have to respond to - or possibly die.

This, to me, is like real life - there are a lot of "stories" out there... he wants to set up his own business, she's just looking for the quiet life, he's wanting to find a woman who truly loves him etc.  We wander around in our own stories - with our own motivations and goals.  We encounter people and respond to the situations based on what we're wanting and their reactions are grounded in their own motivations - they don't do things at random (even though it may see they do).

I've got the setting and a bunch of stories, the players move in midst of that and write their story of how they affect - and are affected by - the setting and the other stories.  What happens if what they've done directly hampers one of those powerful corporate heads?  

Will the things they do hamper a corporate head?  I've no idea, their stories are in the early stages when they're finding their feet in a strange town and I've really got no idea what they will decide to do.  But if they _do _hamper a corporate head - or annoy the wrong people - then what happens will not be random. 

I do have ideas that I plan out for our gaming session - as both their employer and The Cruel Hand of Fate, I have a fair idea of where I want to send them for the day and what sort of things I can throw in their way.  I also have encounters with people (who, if the players play their cards in a particular way, may have information that could be interesting or useful) that may or may not happen depending on what they do - but I still plan for them, at least have the character and motivations of the NPC set.

And if they do solve or tie up some mysteries or stories along the way or find some of the little "treasures" I have hidden around the place, I can always introduce a few more story arcs, more things for them to find - in and around doing their work, paying their bills and having fun during their time off.

But basically everything that happens is driven by some story or other - the NPCs stories - and the outcome will vary depending on how the characters decide to respond.

For me, having the characters wandering around with every meeting and reaction to them being "random" (if the very small subset of possibilities contained in a reaction table can be said to be truly random) robs the game of realism.  "You meet [one of twenty different species] who is a [one of twenty different character classes] and (s)he wants to [one of twenty different actions]" just does not compare with "well, since you blew the lid on a major operation, a guy who has 8.3 billion euro and a small army at his disposal is now out to get you for screwing his chances to become Senator." 

In my games, if the characters elect to take a six month tour of Europe, they will come back to find that the place they left has totally changed - the stories marched on without them.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 13, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> The trouble with illusionism is that its alot like winning a game when you are a kid and then discovering that the person you played the game with let you win.



Now *this *is definitely not a fair characterization of my approach. I said nothing about making things easier, or more likely for the PCs to 'win'. I said the idea is _better_: more fun, more awesome, or what have you.

I'm selective about which player ideas I use. Recently as the PCs were exploring a dungeon and discussing amongst themselves what they might run across. One player suggested mind flayers just to be funny; mind flayers are a bit out of their league at their level. But it really fit in with the themes of the dungeon, and gave me a good idea of how to plant a plot hook I'd been looking to give them. So mind flayers it is!

A couple of PCs nearly died in the fight, but it was a very fun fight. So I was glad I used the player's idea, even though it made it more challenging than I had originally anticipated.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 13, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> Well designed random tables help alot.




I am sure the little fella appreciates it too.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 13, 2010)

As I think about Celebrim's definition of illusionism, I realize that what I described in the other thread is definitely not illusionism. It's not about making player choice irrelevant, it's about giving players input into the adventure design process, without them realizing it.

If I had decided myself during my prep work that mind flayers were going to be there, how would that be any different than improvising a change to mind flayers based on a player's out-of-game comment?

So not only is improvisation a valid term for this, illusionism is an invalid one.


----------



## Celebrim (May 13, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Now *this *is definitely not a fair characterization of my approach. I said nothing about making things easier, or more likely for the PCs to 'win'. I said the idea is _better_: more fun, more awesome, or what have you.




Doesn't matter.  If you make the game harder in order to make it more exciting, that's illusionism too.  Even if you don't make the game harder or easier, if you are deciding what is more awesome and secretly changing the unpainted part of your world in response to something out of game, that's still illusionism. 

The problem alot of people have is that they find a term like 'Illusionism' demeaning, so they immediately shy away from it and get all defensive - "_I_ don't engage in illusionism.  Not my game!"  I'm not entirely sure why they'd do that though, because every RPG is nothing more than a conceit among the players.  Everything on some level is illusion.  The game space is not real.



> I'm selective about which player ideas I use. Recently as the PCs were exploring a dungeon and discussing amongst themselves what they might run across. One player suggested mind flayers just to be funny; mind flayers are a bit out of their league at their level. But it really fit in with the themes of the dungeon, and gave me a good idea of how to plant a plot hook I'd been looking to give them. So mind flayers it is!
> 
> A couple of PCs nearly died in the fight, but it was a very fun fight. So I was glad I used the player's idea, even though it made it more challenging than I had originally anticipated.




Did you tell the players that you only put mind flayers in the dungeon because one of them suggested it?   If you didn't, then that's the heart and soul of illusionism.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 13, 2010)

> _Own_ the words. Make them _yours_.




`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'


----------



## Fifth Element (May 13, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> Doesn't matter.  If you make the game harder in order to make it more exciting, that's illusionism too.  Even if you don't make the game harder or easier, if you are deciding what is more awesome and secretly changing the unpainted part of your world in response to something out of game, that's still illusionism.



The problem I have with this definition is this. Say I have an adventure designed, and on the drive over to the game session, I see a billboard that makes me think of ogres for whatever reason, and decide that I should change the trolls I had originally planned on using into ogres, because I think it will work better.

This seems to fit your definition of illusionism. But to me that's just part of adventure design. I may change things around several times in an adventure before running it, and some changes are based on external sources of inspiration. When is the adventure set, such that any future change may be called illusionism?



Celebrim said:


> I'm not entirely sure why they'd do that though, because every RPG is nothing more than a conceit among the players.  Everything on some level is illusion.  The game space is not real.



Indeed, and I certainly engage in (what I would call) illusionism at times in my games. It's just part of the DM's toolbox as far as I'm concerned. But if everything is illusionism on some level, doesn't that make it a meaningless distinction?



Celebrim said:


> Did you tell the players that you only put mind flayers in the dungeon because one of them suggested it?   If you didn't, then that's the heart and soul of illusionism.



Why would the source of inspiration matter? If I get an idea from a TV show or a book, what's the difference?

Perhaps there's still some confusion as to what I mean. If I change something to mind flayers, it's not like I describe the scene with trolls, and then one player says "You know what would be cool? Mind flayers!" and I say "Yeah, you're right! Let's make it mind flayers instead!" I'm talking about player comments (typically to other players) during the game that I use in the adventure design (not necessarily right away, it could be sessions later for adventures I hadn't designed yet at the time) because it sounds like a good idea.

I see illusionism as something like a magician's force - the illusion of choice. That's not what I was talking about.


----------



## Celebrim (May 13, 2010)

LostSoul said:


> No.  No.  Not at all.  When players make meaningful choices, there is no illusionism.  A game that does not rob players of those choices does not have illusionism.




I prefer a slightly broader definition of illusionism. 

If you read the essay The Shaman linked to, you'll find my examples were a bit more broad than his.  He attempted to limit illusionism solely to my example #1.  That's fine, and if you want to stick to it, I'm not going to quibble over terminology - I'll invent the broader term.  Rather than arguing over the use of terms, I'd just like to point out how the four examples I gave all do seem to have a common thread.  I would argue that they all meet the classic definition of illusionism because they all in some way take away player choice.  Some are just more subtle than others.

And on an even more basic level, simply because the game world is not real and the GM the authority in arbitrating what is in play, IMO it all hangs together on a certain amount of illusionism.  Some forms of illusionism are quite subtle and there effect on player choice is equally subtle and difficult to define, but its always there in some form (IMO).  

So, for the purposes of this discussion let's call things like the four examples I gave 'Hard Illusionism'.  There exists I think 'Soft Illusionism' that is more or less inherent in the structure of a RPG and relates to two basic facts.  First, that the DM's version of the imagined space is inherently more limited than a real space is.  And secondly, that the game is intended to be fun.  These constraints mean that the game is always employing various conciets in order to make it seem to the player that they have greater agency than they actually do and that the outcomes that the players are recieving are natural.  Go any which way you want in GNS, and you find that at some level the style of gaming depends on an illusion.  In gamism for example, IMO it depends on the illusion of fair competition.  



> Illusionsim is when players think they are making choices but in reality the outcome of those choices have been pre-determined by another player.  (Currency does not play into this.)
> 
> Contrast this with participationism, where players realize that the choices they make don't matter, but they are willing to go along for the ride.




I agree with all of that.  I'm not sure why you think it is corrective.


----------



## Scribble (May 13, 2010)

LostSoul said:


> edit: Illusionsim is when players think they are making choices but in reality the outcome of those choices have been pre-determined by another player.  (Currency does not play into this.)
> 
> Contrast this with participationism, where players realize that the choices they make don't matter, but they are willing to go along for the ride.





I coin a new term!

Illusartinipatisim- A mixture of both!


----------



## billd91 (May 13, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> Doesn't matter.  If you make the game harder in order to make it more exciting, that's illusionism too.  Even if you don't make the game harder or easier, if you are deciding what is more awesome and secretly changing the unpainted part of your world in response to something out of game, that's still illusionism.
> 
> The problem alot of people have is that they find a term like 'Illusionism' demeaning, so they immediately shy away from it and get all defensive - "_I_ don't engage in illusionism.  Not my game!"  I'm not entirely sure why they'd do that though, because every RPG is nothing more than a conceit among the players.  Everything on some level is illusion.  The game space is not real.
> 
> ...




I dunno. Over the course of even this brief discussion plus the link out to the other game blog, the use of illusionism seems to be drifting into broad territory. From the blog, it looks like illusionism is characterized by what my friends usually call quantum adventure design. It's the act of observing the encounter/location by the PCs that places it, usually because the DM wants to make sure something is found/encountered. Once placed, it stays put, but until actually observed it exists in some undefined state.
The illusion, in this case, is that the player choice of direction for exploration made the difference between finding the encounter/location when it was really the DM's choice.

But I'm not really seeing how adjusting some of the details of the encounter or location is illusionism just because it doesn't match intentions set down at a particular time. If I change a detail 2 days before the PCs encounter it, is it no longer illusionism? How about 5 seconds? How about between the time the encounter/situation starts and it is finally resolved?

If we get to the point where I'm changing things simply because the players want it to be so, validating their choices, then I think I can see that we're creating the illusion that their choices could be bad ones or lead to failure. But killing off the BBEG based on a player's good choice that simply doesn't do quite enough damage on the die roll? I'm not sure I really follow that as illusionism. I also wouldn't see any illusionism in changing a detail because, thanks to player input, the DM realizes his original plans were deficient or could be made better in general without removing any chance for the PCs to succeed or fail based on player choices.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 13, 2010)

Scribble said:


> I coin a new term!
> 
> Illusartinipatisim- A mixture of both!




No way am I going to attempt to say that!


----------



## Celebrim (May 13, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> The problem I have with this definition is this. Say I have an adventure designed, and on the drive over to the game session, I see a billboard that makes me think of ogres for whatever reason, and decide that I should change the trolls I had originally planned on using into ogres, because I think it will work better.
> 
> This seems to fit your definition of illusionism.




In my opinion it doesn't, and if it does, I'll need to refine my definition a little.  There is something different going on here than in any of my four examples, and different from what I've been talking about.  



> When is the adventure set, such that any future change may be called illusionism?




To answer that question, let me dig into what I think the problem with illusionism is.  The problem with illusionism is that its always a form of deception.  It doesn't work in the intended way if the players see through the deception.  If the DM reveals how the trick works, it not only loses its magic but in some cases reveals that the DM has broken an implicit social contract.  The gamist at the table is playing to win.  If its revealed that the DM gave him the win (or made the win harder than it should have been), that's a violation of social contract.  The same is true of the problem solving player when you validate his first thoughts on the answer to the puzzle presented, regardless if that was the 'real' solution to the puzzle.  Another player at the table may believe that he has real player agency.  Finding out that it didn't matter whether he went left or right, can make that player grumpy to say the least.   

But even if you have players who are willing to be decieved and accept that, it still loses its magic when you reveal the trick.  

So, let's take the two examples.

1) You are playing the game when a player says, "I bet its mind flayers."  You inwardly think, "Yeah, mind flayers would be really cool." and change the trolls to mind flayers.  This is illusionism.
2) You prepared two weeks of material.  In between sessions, you see a billboard and you think, "Mind flayers would be cooler than trolls.  I should do mind flayers instead.  This is not illusionism.

The differences are subtle, but they all come down to at some level deception.  In the first case, you are secretly changing in the middle of a game in response to a player comment.   In the second case, you are secretly changing in responce to your own second thoughts and not in response to anything happening in a session.   In the first case, your impartiality is clearly in question.   Moreover, you are much less likely to be willing to reveal to the player after the session that you only put the mind flayers in at the last moment, than you are in the second case.  In the second case, the player would probably shrug because no implied social contract has been violated.  You were just 'doing your job'.  But players are much more likely to feel that they have been violated if they find that you are using there own ideas 'against them'.   That's why you have alot of tables out there were players willl scold other players for 'giving the DM ideas'.  

I think this is harder to define in a Socratic fashion that it is to just define by some sort of empherical test.  If you would have no problem revealing to the player the trick and the player would not be disappointed to learn the trick, then its probably not illusionism.  This test has the difficulty that it seems to make the definition of illusionism relative to the group, but practically I think that what is really going on is that the level of illusionism that players feel is acceptable varies from group to group.  And, since I don't think illusionism is necessarily bad, I think groups should play with the level of illusionism that they are comfortable with.   Some groups embrace the illusion if it achieves the result they want.  Others want to do away with any trace of 'hard illusionism'.  

While we are here:

3) A player mentions mind flayers.  You think to yourself, "After we finish the trolls, I should have an adventure with mind flayers" 

Is in my opinion in a very gray area.  It's alot less problimatic than #1 above, which is in my opinion clearly hard illusionism.  Exactly how much illusionism is going on in #3 is a matter that can be debated, but I think that at the very least its a good example of the 'soft illusionism' I'm talking about - the DM's imagination is limited, so things exist in the world only if the DM is prompted to think about them.



> But if everything is illusionism on some level, doesn't that make it a meaningless distinction?




Humans have a tendency to want to think entirely in qualitative differences.  When you start dealing with quantitative differences between things, human language is ill-equipped to deal with it.  However, I think we can agree that quantitative differences between things do exist and are meaningful.


----------



## Scribble (May 13, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> 1) You are playing the game when a player says, "I bet its mind flayers."  You inwardly think, "Yeah, mind flayers would be really cool." and change the trolls to mind flayers.  This is illusionism.
> 2) You prepared two weeks of material.  In between sessions, you see a billboard and you think, "Mind flayers would be cooler than trolls.  I should do mind flayers instead.  This is not illusionism.




What happens if in between sessions the player remarks that he likes Mind Flayers, and you change it to Mind Flayers?

Or what if in the game you look out the window and see the billboard?

 But then what if it's a billboard the player built the night before saying "I Like Mind Flayers?"


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 13, 2010)

Great post there, Celebrim.  Must spread XP around before giving it again, etc., etc.....


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 13, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Or what if in the game you look out the window and see the billboard?




You are secretly Keyser Soze?


----------



## Fifth Element (May 13, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> 1) You are playing the game when a player says, "I bet its mind flayers."  You inwardly think, "Yeah, mind flayers would be really cool." and change the trolls to mind flayers.  This is illusionism.
> 2) You prepared two weeks of material.  In between sessions, you see a billboard and you think, "Mind flayers would be cooler than trolls.  I should do mind flayers instead.  This is not illusionism.



I don't see this as a meaningful distinction. If as DM I am in charge of deciding what monsters are there, I don't see a meaningful distinction between deciding it last week and deciding it just now.

If I make a last-second change to mind flayers based on my own whims, not on something a player has said, is that illusionism?

You've said that the source of the inspiration to change doesn't matter. So is it entirely the timing?


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 13, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> This test has the difficulty that it seems to make the definition of illusionism relative to the group



The term railroading is relative in the same way. It's only railroading if the players are unhappy with their freedom being restricted. Though I admit railroading sometimes has a wholly non-pejorative sense too.

The concepts of railroading and illusionism are similar in that they are to do with removing the players' ability to make meaningful choices.

Roleplaying is so subjective, what different groups find acceptable so varying, that we encounter this problem of relativism all the time.


----------



## Scribble (May 13, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> You are secretly Keyser Soze?




Heh... I just feel that sometimes people get sucked into wanting to get way too "precise" when trying to define things that aren't really that precise.


----------



## Imaginary Number (May 13, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> To answer that question, let me dig into what I think the problem with illusionism is. The problem with illusionism is that its always a form of deception. It doesn't work in the intended way if the players see through the deception. If the DM reveals how the trick works, it not only loses its magic but in some cases reveals that the DM has broken an implicit social contract. The gamist at the table is playing to win. If its revealed that the DM gave him the win (or made the win harder than it should have been), that's a violation of social contract. The same is true of the problem solving player when you validate his first thoughts on the answer to the puzzle presented, regardless if that was the 'real' solution to the puzzle. Another player at the table may believe that he has real player agency. Finding out that it didn't matter whether he went left or right, can make that player grumpy to say the least.
> 
> But even if you have players who are willing to be decieved and accept that, it still loses its magic when you reveal the trick.




Wouldn't these players have the same objection to almost any sort of DM improvisation, though? Let's assume that I have a room in the dungeon that I know will contain something when the players get there, but I don't decide what that something is until the moment the players arrive. The gamist player could be bothered by this because I hadn't set "win" conditions prior to the encounter; the problem solver could be bothered because I hadn't figured out what the problem actually was until the players found it; the "real agency" player could be bothered because I hadn't completely defined the scope of choices available to the player before the point of choosing arrived. These players aren't objecting to illusionism/deception because I haven't changed anything from X to Y, either in response to my own idea or anyone else's. They're objecting to the lack of objectively verifiable advance detail work that the DM is putting into adventure design.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 13, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Heh... I just feel that sometimes people get sucked into wanting to get way too "precise" when trying to define things that aren't really that precise.




I agree that this is sometimes the case.

Expecting that the use of language will ever arrive at perfect clarity is, IMHO, setting yourself up for a fall.  Expecting that one can clarify ideas to some degree to others who are open to that clarification, OTOH, is a pretty normal expectation.

IMHO, anyway.  YMMV.


RC


----------



## Scribble (May 13, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I agree that this is sometimes the case.
> 
> Expecting that the use of language will ever arrive at perfect clarity is, IMHO, setting yourself up for a fall.  Expecting that one can clarify ideas to some degree to others who are open to that clarification, OTOH, is a pretty normal expectation.
> 
> ...




I don't disagree.... but again feel that sometimes while doing so we have a tendency to try to take it too far, and be too precise, when it really shouldn't be.

This is what I feel causes more disagreements then really clarifies anything (I think because the ideas are too subjective.)

But, this is just MY opinion.


----------



## Celebrim (May 13, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> I don't see this as a meaningful distinction.




Of course you don't.



> If as DM I am in charge of deciding what monsters are there, I don't see a meaningful distinction between deciding it last week and deciding it just now.




You keep focusing on time.  I don't recall making time a big issue in my distinctions.



> If I make a last-second change to mind flayers based on my own whims, not on something a player has said, is that illusionism?




No, depending on what your 'whims' are and that they are actually whimsical, that's probably just improvisation.  As an aside, I only have big problems as a player with illusionism when its improvised.  Planned illusionism in small quantities doesn't bother me, provided there is still some allowance for players to make a meaningful choice.  Both as a DM and a player, I believe in narrow-broad-narrow structures.  Hooks and climaxes don't bother me, as long as you can make meaningful choices in between and to a lesser extent, determine which hook you'll take.

However, as a player I detest improvised illusionism (and as a DM, I sometimes do it anyway, mostly to stop TPKs/deaths when I think I've been unfair to the player).  Lately though, I'm learning to build illusionism into the scenario design, which interestingly lets me work out the math ahead of time and IMO be fairer to the player than either a strict simulation or improvisation would be.



> You've said that the source of the inspiration to change doesn't matter. So is it entirely the timing?




No, I said it was entirely in the deception.  Illusionism is a trick.  If you set down with your players and say, "Hmmm... mind flayers would be cool.  Why don't we agree to have mind flayers as the villain.", that isn't illusionism.   If you say to your players, "Hmmm.. a critical hit.  I think I made this fight too hard, so let's have that hit take down the villain.", that isn't illusionism.  If you say to your players, "Well, I never had decided on who the murderer was, but the Grand Visor sounds like a good choice, so let's go with that.", that isn't illusionism either. Some games pull the curtain away like that deliberately and even mechanically.   But if you pull those sort of tricks and don't inform the players, then that is illusionism. 

It's up to you as a DM to decide whether you can live with that.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 13, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> No, I said it was entirely in the deception.  Illusionism is a trick.  If you set down with your players and say, "Hmmm... mind flayers would be cool.  Why don't we agree to have mind flayers as the villain.", that isn't illusionism.   If you say to your players, "Hmmm.. a critical hit.  I think I made this fight too hard, so let's have that hit take down the villain.", that isn't illusionism.  If you say to your players, "Well, I never had decided on who the murderer was, but the Grand Visor sounds like a good choice, so let's go with that.", that isn't illusionism either. Some games pull the curtain away like that deliberately and even mechanically.   But if you pull those sort of tricks and don't inform the players, then that is illusionism.



I still don't think I follow. If, as DM, I don't consult with my players as to who the villain is going to be, that would be illusionism? If so, that's *very *soft illusionism. So soft that it really doesn't fit the word.

Are you saying that anything you don't explicitly discuss with the players results in illusionism?


----------



## Hussar (May 13, 2010)

In a mind blowing turn of events, I keep finding myself nodding in agreement with everything Celebrim says.  It's a weird day.    Can't posrep again though.  Sigh.

If I'm understanding things correctly, there's a spectrum of illusionism.  At one end, you create a scenario (or whatever) completely independently from the players and make absolutely no adjustments, either before or during play, to accomodate that scenario to the players.  If you were to pick up a module, run it verbatim without any regard for the characters the players have created, this would be an example of zero illusionism.

However, once you start changing elements based upon the characters and the players, the level of illusionism increases.  If you have a player that uses Bohemian Ear Spoons and you drop a magical Bohemian Ear Spoon into your adventure specifically for him to find, this would be a very low level of illusionism - you've introduced elements to reward the players, not because it makes any sort of sense in the game.

Beyond that, we get into what Celebrim terms Hard Illusionism, where at the very far extreme, the DM is constantly adjusting each and every element to suit a particular asthetic and goal.  

The way he's built this definition, it's pretty neutral either way.  If the players like what's going on, it's not a bad thing.  If the players object, then the level is too high and the DM probably needs to ratchet it down a bit.

Celebrim, this is a very robust definition you've built here.


----------



## Celebrim (May 13, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> I still don't think I follow. If, as DM, I don't consult with my players as to who the villain is going to be, that would be illusionism?




I give up.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 13, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> I give up.




That is too bad....I think that there are quite a few posters who have been capable of following your reasoning.  And who have appreciated it.


RC


----------



## Celebrim (May 13, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Celebrim, this is a very robust definition you've built here.




I don't get the credit.  I'm just trying to explain what 'Illusionism' is.  I didn't invent the concept.

The only area I've departed from the normal definition (at least, as I understand the normal definition from my reading) is in the area of what I mean by 'Soft Illusionism', and I haven't really got deep into that area because without full agreement and understanding over '[Hard] Illusionism', getting into what I mean by the soft stuff would derail the discussion.

But yes, dropping a particular treasure that you know one of your players covet because he covets it is a form of illusionism.  This is in fact one of the sorts of illusionism that is widely practiced and widely overlooked by the players.  Everyone knows it goes on, but we all look the other way when it happens and no one screams 'Railroad!'.  (Well, probably someone somewhere does.)  You could probably lampshade it by writing into the setting an explanation for why it happens (in the same way the fact that the ToH is filled with fair-minded traps gets lampshaded in RttToH), but that's a different discussion. 

I'm in no way passing judgment on how you play the game.  I'm not Ron Edwards.  I don't think that each game only has one right way to play it, or that you can't mix game types.  I'm not going to accuse people of being incoherent and frustrated (or worse), or claiming that old designers didn't know anything because they didn't design games to fit neatly into the big model.  Illusionism in my opinion is just there and its a valid tool use properly and like most anything can be really overused.  I can tell you how I would play my game and why and I firmly believe my advice gives good results, but ultimately its up to the individual GM to decide how to play his game and whether I'm just full of crap.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 13, 2010)

Hussar said:


> If I'm understanding things correctly, there's a spectrum of illusionism.  At one end, you create a scenario (or whatever) completely independently from the players and make absolutely no adjustments, either before or during play, to accomodate that scenario to the players.  If you were to pick up a module, run it verbatim without any regard for the characters the players have created, this would be an example of zero illusionism.



Perhaps you can explain it to me then, Hussar, since Celeberim has apparently given up. Perhaps it's a result of us talking past one another, I'm not sure.

In the example I had given, I prepared an adventure ahead of time. In my mind, of course, I am preparing it specifically for the players involved, since that's what I do as DM. I gathered from Celebrim's responses that so long as I don't change this adventure after it's been prepared, there is no illusionism.

This is similar to your example above, except of course that the adventure was designed for the players. And that may be where my confusion lies, in that Celebrim and I have different assumptions about what I'm suggesting.

If your summary of his definition is correct, then his definition is rather different from the definition that The Shaman linked to that started this whole thing off, here. That definition involves creating the illusion of choice, wherein regardless of what the players choose, they end up in the same place. Perhaps that's why I'm confused, because I keep trying to link his definition back to this one.


----------



## billd91 (May 13, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Perhaps you can explain it to me then, Hussar, since Celeberim has apparently given up. Perhaps it's a result of us talking past one another, I'm not sure.
> 
> In the example I had given, I prepared an adventure ahead of time. In my mind, of course, I am preparing it specifically for the players involved, since that's what I do as DM. I gathered from Celebrim's responses that so long as I don't change this adventure after it's been prepared, there is no illusionism.
> 
> ...




If I'm reading Celebrim correctly, the illusionism in designing things specifically for the PCs is it validates their choices. It protects them from their choices of character classes, feats, weapons of preference, or even timing of entering the encounter area at a level much lower than the challenge being particularly poor or something the DM doesn't want the consequences to be. While they may choose to be a ragtag group of second-stringers, by building for the party, you've made the choices to be hard-luck charcters illusory by choosing for them to be able to handle the challenges with some expectation of competence.

It feels like a bit of a stretch when you compare it with the more clear smoke and mirrors of putting the DM's choice of encounters before the PCs no matter where they go. But I think that's what he's getting at.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 13, 2010)

billd91 said:


> If I'm reading Celebrim correctly, the illusionism in designing things specifically for the PCs is it validates their choices. It protects them from their choices of character classes, feats, weapons of preference, or even timing of entering the encounter area at a level much lower than the challenge being particularly poor or something the DM doesn't want the consequences to be. While they may choose to be a ragtag group of second-stringers, by building for the party, you've made the choices to be hard-luck charcters illusory by choosing for them to be able to handle the challenges with some expectation of competence.



Okay, if that's what he means, then I understand that. I think that has little relevance to my comment that started this discussion off, though.



billd91 said:


> It feels like a bit of a stretch when you compare it with the more clear smoke and mirrors of putting the DM's choice of encounters before the PCs no matter where they go. But I think that's what he's getting at.



Indeed, it is quite a stretch. It would also explain why he perceives that some people get upset when their methods are referred to as illusionism, since they may be using the strict definition presented in the blog, where you take choice away from the players.

Catering to your player's preferences is quite different from removing their ability to make meaningful choices in-game.


----------



## Celebrim (May 13, 2010)

billd91 said:


> It feels like a bit of a stretch when you compare it with the more clear smoke and mirrors of putting the DM's choice of encounters before the PCs no matter where they go.




No, it's the exact same trick.  

Imagine you have two stage magicians, and they are putting on their usual act to impress people.  Each is competing with the other one. 

The first magician says, "I can read the future.  Pick a card, don't show it to me, put it into this envelope.  And I'll tell you what it is."  So the guy does so and the magicians says, "It's the Queen of Hearts", and sure enough they open the envelope and its the Queen of Hearts.

The second magician says, "That's nothing.  I can teach you to read the future.  Pick a card, don't look at it, put it into this envelope."  So the guy does so, and the magician says, "Now stretch out with your feelings.  Let go of your conscious self and act on instinct.  Now, what is the card."  The guy says, "It's the Seven of Clubs.", and the magician opens the envelope and sure enough its the Seven of Clubs, and the guy says, "That's amazing!"

When the guy leaves the first magician says to the other one, "Stop stealing my tricks."  And the second magician says, "It's not the same trick."  And the first magician replies, "It is the same trick.  I saw you do it."  Then the second magician says, "Ahh.. but he doesn't know that."


----------



## Fifth Element (May 13, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> No, it's the exact same trick.



How so?

Moreover, how does the change to mind flayers from trolls _create _or _increase _illusionism? That was the thrust of The Shaman's comment in the first place. If it was me as DM that put the trolls there in the first place, then I see no difference in then changing them to something else.

How is that the exact same trick as having only one possible result, regardless of player choice and character actions, which was the thrust of the blog post?

Now, if your argument is that my placing the trolls in the first place is illusionism, that's fine, but there would presumably be no greater illusionism in my later changing them to something else.


----------



## The Shaman (May 13, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> A key point at which prepared material becomes a plot is once you, the GM, imagine it interacting with the PCs in some way.



Agreed.

I've read posts in this thread and elsewhere suggesting that _anything_ that's happening in the setting is a "plot" or a "story," but this is a semantics exercise which, in my opinion, obscures the point that these exist _independently_ of the players and their characters, and _they remain so_ unless or until the adventurers encounter them while playing the game. These are not "stories" or "plots" the adventurers are _expected_ to follow, and they are not prepared with the adventurers' interaction or particiption assumed or prescribed.

_If_ the adventurers become involved with an npc, or encounter some other event due to proximity or the like, in the course of their travels, then the events associated with the npc or the background of the setting change as a result of the adventurers' involvement, so whatever "plot" or "story" that may be said to exist in my notes effectively ceases to exist as such.

In _Le Ballet . . ._, there are numerous rivalries and schemes among the npcs in the setting, many of them historical in fact. None of these are written for the adventurers specifically, in large part because I have no idea who the adventurers will be or what they will pursue. Maybe they will become involved in one of them, but I have no specific expectations of that: I'm not casting about plot hooks to snare them into the Chalais conspiracy or Montmorency's rebellion.

As I noted upthread, my goal is for the adventurers to create their own "plots," in pursuit of their own goals, rather than searching for "plot hooks" to snag. Let them develop allies and rivals through their actions and choices, not by my contrivance.

And whatever 'story' can be said to exist is created on their side the screen, not mine.


----------



## The Shaman (May 13, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> I think that has little relevance to my comment that started this discussion off, though.



For reference, here is *5E*'s comment I referred to in my post upthread:







Fifth Element said:


> I don't think you can be a very effective DM if you can't improvise. The key to me is always listening to what the players are saying, even if it's just to each other when they assume you're not listening. They'll usually give you clues as to what they expect, and then you can decide if that's what they'll get, or if you think the complete opposite might be better you go for that. Or if you have a flash of brilliance you can subvert what they expect and make it all the more awesome.
> 
> Players are great sources of ideas, even when they don't realize they're giving you ideas.
> 
> Edit: This applies for planned encounters or events as well. If the players come up with something spontaneously which sounds better than what you had planned, you should consider improvising to change what you had planned to something closer to their idea.


----------



## Mallus (May 13, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> But yes, dropping a particular treasure that you know one of your players covet because he covets it is a form of illusionism.



This seems to move the definition of illusionism beyond "DM actions which invalidate or remove meaningful player choice" and closer to "anything that fulfills a player's desires". Lucking into the vorpal sword Tom always wanted doesn't appear, to me, at least, to deny Tom a meaningful choice, ergo, I wouldn't call it illusionism.

I think this is where discussions of illusionism frequently break down; over the failure to acknowledge not all choices are equally important. Most of us can agree that rendering individual player choices irrelevant is a bad thing... but not every choice is meaningful, or even rightly considered a choice at all.

Let's say I'm DM'ing and I invent a location, a tavern full of charming grifters called the Inn of the Prancing Phony. It's a place of plot hooks, role-playing opportunities, and cheap, imaginary beer. What it is not is a trap to be avoided or a treasure to be sought, so there's no element of strategy involved. I can't definitively place it in the setting because I'm running a campaign where the player's direct where the plot goes (since they _are_ the plot). So the tavern will be wherever they go.

From my perspective, I'm not forcing anything on the players, I'm just making smart use of my creative output. I thought up this cool place for them to visit so I'll plunk it down in their path. Once there, the players are free to bite on the plots hooks or ignore them. Neither am I denying them a _meaningful_ choice, since they don't know the tavern exists, there's literally no choice involved. Now once they start interacting with the NPC's in the Phony, _then_ meaningful choices emerge. Do they bite on the plot hooks? Do they decide to do some proactive, and probably larcenous, themselves? 

Since I'm apparently in wall-of-text mode (I blame it on exposure to Celebrim's posts), here's another example. I've decided to introduce Patron X into my campaign. He's out to recruit the PC's and is secretly in the employ of a foreign power. Naturally, he's going to be directly in the PC's path, wherever they go. 

I mean, where else should he be? He's a fictional character, after all, in a fictional world. He should be where I need him. Which is in front of the PC's, offering them a choice, a deal that sounds too good to be true. Because that's where the interesting and meaningful choice lies. It would certainly be bad form if, after introducing him, I conspired to force the players to work for Patron X. Luckily, I wouldn't do that.


----------



## Celebrim (May 13, 2010)

Mallus said:


> This seems to move the definition of illusionism beyond "DM actions which invalidate or remove meaningful player choice" and closer to "anything that fulfills a player's desires". Lucking into the vorpal sword Tom always wanted doesn't appear, to me, at least, to deny Tom a meaningful choice, ergo, I wouldn't call it illusionism.




Most players are happy with, "Alright! The DM gave me the sword I always wanted."

However, some players will focus on, "Alright. The DM _gave_ me the sword I always wanted."

Having what you want just drop into your lap because you wanted it blows suspension of disbelief for some players.  It also in the opinion of some deprotagonizes them.  I don't know if choice is the right word, but they see it as denying them the right to go and win the sword and earn it.  Consider three different responses to the player wanting a particular magic item:

a) Roll randomly for treasure according to some table which is supposed to represent the distribution of treasure in the world.  Place the sword only if the impartial mechanics of world building say that the sword is there.
b) Allow the player to actively seek out such a weapon.  Examine the setting and determine from myth, legend, and history where such a weapon is most likely to be found - even if the location ends up being quite remote from the current setting of the campaign.  Allow the player to seek out the item using his character's resources to research and explore the setting.  Perhaps ultimately even say, "No.", such an item doesn't exist.  You will have to find resources to make it yourself.
c) Place the weapon somewhere in the adventure path that you've planned so that the player can find it and make use of it with minimal disruption to your planned campaign.

Now, I don't want to get into judging the various merits of these plans, nor do I want to suggest that they are completely incompatible.  However, they do produce different results.



> I think this is where discussions of illusionism frequently break down; over the failure to acknowledge not all choices are equally important. Most of us can agree that rendering individual player choices irrelevant is a bad thing... but not every choice is meaningful, or even rightly considered a choice at all.




Hense my attempt to distinguish between 'hard' and 'soft' illusionism.  



> Let's say I'm DM'ing and I invent a location, a tavern full of charming grifters called the Inn of the Prancing Phony. It's a place of plot hooks, role-playing opportunities, and cheap, imaginary beer. What it is not is a trap to be avoided or a treasure to be sought, so there's no element of strategy involved. I can't definitively place it in the setting because I'm running a campaign where the player's direct where the plot goes (since they _are_ the plot). So the tavern will be wherever they go.
> 
> From my perspective, I'm not forcing anything on the players, I'm just making smart use of my creative output.




I agree.  However, the fact remains that you did force the tavern on the players.  They couldn't avoid it.  Where ever went, there was this tavern lurking, waiting for them.   The illusionism is that the players themselves don't see that.  The tavern exists where they first find it, and they never knew about all the close brushes that they had when the tavern nearly jumped out and got them in some other town. 

And, both as a player and a DM, I'm fine with that - though the thought of the Tavern racing to head the players off at the pass makes me smile.

However, whether or not that is bad isn't really what I want to talk about.  I just want to point it out as a technique and label it so that we can talk about it either to condemn or praise it as a technique or whatever.  I'm just trying to define the term, and a tavern which doesn't exist anywhere because it exists potentially everywhere until its observed is a sort of illusionism.  In the particular case you describe, it doesnt' really deny the players a meaningful choice IMO - in fact, IMO it actually creates choice - but you can through overuse of this technique deny players meaningful choice.  And what you have to understand is that players who have had this technique used against them to deny them meaningful choices, or who are otherwise particularly opposed to illusionism - might not agree with your and my assessment of whether this denies them meaningful choice.  In point of fact, you did put them on a railroad in the most literal sense of the term.  There was nowhere they could go but the Phony Inn.

I should also note that I've already said that planned illusionism like this doesn't bother me.  It's only the improvised illusionism that I object to, precisely because I've been burned by it so many times.



> I've decided to introduce Patron X into my campaign. He's out to recruit the PC's and is secretly in the employ of a foreign power. Naturally, he's going to be directly in the PC's path, wherever they go.




Really?  I don't think you actually mean that.   I think you mean that he'll catch up to the players whenever it doesn't break suspension of disbelief.   If the players are really trying to hide, escape, evade, or are at the moment in a trap filled tomb in a sea cave the Cursed Lost Skerry of Dread, or if the PC's are currently visiting the locked extradiminsional demiplane of Otto the Mad, then Patron X probably won't be catching up to them in the immediate future.



> I mean, where else should he be? He's a fictional character, after all, in a fictional world. He should be where I need him.




I think there is a limit to that.  I agree that he can be anywhere you need him, but I think there also ought to be some consideration of whether Patron X has the resources to be there.  If Patron X catches up to the PC's while they are in the Fabled City of Brass, it implies certain things about the capabilities of Patron X that ought to be suitable to the character.  If you create Patron X, and then the PC's unexpectedly slip off somewhere Patron X as you created him shouldn't be able to go or if PC's 'get lost' and Patron X is less than omniscient, I'm hesistant to thrust Patron X in the players face or rework him so that he's capable of doing what I need him to do.  Because at that point, IMO, I'm really not letting the PC's do anything meaningful.  All roads led only where I want them to go, I'm just changing the curtains.



> Because that's where the interesting and meaningful choice lies.




One problem with this is that if you aren't careful, the only interesting and meaningful choice will be to work for Patron X.


----------



## Celebrim (May 13, 2010)

One quick note.  Let me go ahead and define a term for what I think tends to happen when you try to run to far away from illusionism as a DM - "rowboat settings".

A rowboat setting is when the players are dropped into a (metaphorical) rowboat in an extremely broad superficially detailed setting - like say an ocean or the middle of outerspace.  The players are then told to row the boat whereever they want.  They can head in any direction they want.  

They just can't actually ever get anywhere meaningful.  Day after day, session after session, they row the boat furiously.  And day after day, session after session, they encounter the same drearily similar universe of random meaningless happenstance.  Each session is perhaps filled with furious frantic activity, and each day the rowboat is perhaps in a little bit different of a place than it was the day before.  The setting is probably realistic, maybe even hyperrealistic, and the players can make whatever choices they want, but precisely because of this they can't actually do anything meaningful because player agency becomes so tightly constrained by character agency.  The characters - as with real people - don't really have infinite choices either, because real worlds don't actually provide real people with infinite choices either much less exciting story structured lives.

Now, as with illusionism, I'm not trying to damn the rowboat either.  Frankly, being in the rowboat from time to time is alot of fun.  I just would like to get out occassionally and 'take a train' so I can actually get somewhere.


----------



## Mallus (May 13, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> Having what you want just drop into your lap because you wanted it blows suspension of disbelief for some players.



Well, I was assuming the player had to overcome an in-game challenge for the sword, that actual game play was involved, but I think I understand your point. It still seems like a strange thing to damage a player's suspension of disbelief -- or, rather, it suggests a person who's mindset is stuck in the conventions of AD&D, rather than in more primary sources, or in the fiction of the game.

If it happened to one of my PC's, they'd think "I was destined to find this sword!", not "this is highly unusual given the treasure distribution guidelines in Appendix IV. I suspect the DM is trying to undercut my sense of accomplishment". 



> I don't know if choice is the right word, but they see it as denying them the right to go and win the sword and earn it.



Reasonable, but it seems like an argument against valuable random treasure as well. Against any reward the player doesn't specifically and proactively seek.  



> b) Allow the player to actively seek out such a weapon.



I agree this the best course of action for significant items. 



> Examine the setting and determine from myth, legend, and history where such a weapon is most likely to be found - even if the location ends up being quite remote from the current setting of the campaign.



In other words, build an adventure out of it -- again, good idea. 



> Hense my attempt to distinguish between 'hard' and 'soft' illusionism.



I guess what I'm getting at it is 1) hard illusionism is bad and 2) soft illusionism isn't worth defining.   



> However, the fact remains that you did force the tavern on the players.  They couldn't avoid it. Where ever went, there was this tavern lurking, waiting for them.   The illusionism is that the players themselves don't see that.  The tavern exists where they first find it, and they never knew about all the close brushes that they had when the tavern nearly jumped out and got them in some other town.



This sounds an awful lot like sophistry (though the funny kind --I'm tempting to create the Ambush Tavern and spring it --literally- on my group). Once the players encounter a place it becomes a fixed part of the game world. But before then, what does it matter?



> I'm just trying to define the term, and a tavern which doesn't exist anywhere because it exists potentially everywhere until its observed is a sort of illusionism.



This describes the bulk of every campaign world I've ever built... ideas in a state of flux that don't get fixed in place until I share them w/others (ie, the get observed in play). The whole thing is illusionsim. 



> There was nowhere they could go but the Phony Inn.



Note that wasn't _exactly_ what I said: I meant players would encounter it, not necessarily step inside and engage w/the NPC's.  



> Really?  I don't think you actually mean that.   I think you mean that he'll catch up to the players whenever it doesn't break suspension of disbelief.



Yes, in fact I did mean that . 



> One problem with this is that if you aren't careful, the only interesting and meaningful choice will be to work for Patron X.



Yes, being mindful of the implications surrounding an NPC you create is important, but that in no way implies the need nor desire to force a particular course of action on the PC's who encounter them. There's a leap of logic I'm missing here...


----------



## The Shaman (May 13, 2010)

Mallus said:


> It still seems like a strange thing to damage a player's suspension of disbelief -- or, rather, it suggests a person who's mindset is stuck in the conventions of AD&D, rather than in more primary sources, or in the fiction of the game.



Perhaps because playing a roleplaying game is a different experience from reading a novel.

Oh look, we're right back to the original post again!


----------



## Mallus (May 13, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> Perhaps because playing a roleplaying game is a different experience from reading a novel.
> 
> Oh look, we're right back to the original post again!



Not exactly, TS. 

I should have written this "..._- or, rather, it suggests a person who's mindset is stuck in the conventions of AD&D, rather than in more primary literary sources, the fiction of the game, or a role-playing game that doesn't rely on random treasure tables as heavily as AD&D._.

I mean, it's perfectly reasonable for a player to get the item or power they desire in some RPG's --say like ones with point-buy systems, and it's only particularly unreasonable if you assume something like AD&D. 

And of course playing an RPG is different form reading novels... they're just alike enough to share terms, certain techniques, and fan-bases (virtually every gamer I've met came to gaming from reading the associated genre fiction).


----------



## The Shaman (May 14, 2010)

Mallus said:


> And of course playing an RPG is different form reading novels... *they're just alike enough to share terms, certain techniques*, and fan-bases (virtually every gamer I've met came to gaming from reading the associated genre fiction).



Or maybe they're less like novels than some gamers want them to be or insist that they be.

Which I believe is *Odhanan*'s premise.


----------



## Hussar (May 14, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> /snip
> Catering to your player's preferences is quite different from removing their ability to make meaningful choices in-game.




How so?  How is it different, other than in degree.  The player has made a choice - I want X for my character.  You deliberately provide X.  That has changed the game so that the player's choice didn't actually matter.  He could have chosen Y and he'd find Y or Z or XKCD or whatever.  No matter what he chooses, he will receive it.  Not easily hopefully, and not immediately, but, he's still going to get it.



Mallus said:


> This seems to move the definition of illusionism beyond "DM actions which invalidate or remove meaningful player choice" and closer to "anything that fulfills a player's desires". Lucking into the vorpal sword Tom always wanted doesn't appear, to me, at least, to deny Tom a meaningful choice, ergo, I wouldn't call it illusionism.
> /snip




But that's the point here.  The player didn't "luck" into anything.  The DM put it there specifically to be found by THIS party.  If no one in the party used a sword, it's very unlikely that that Vorpal Sword would be in the treasure but rather some other item that the player really wants.

---------

Woops, just finished reading the thread so a lot of the above is already covered I think.  But, really, I think Celebrim's point works.  Take another example, which came up some time ago on the boards, but I'm misremembering the exact details:

The party investigates a semi-ruined tower on a hill.  There is a main gate into the tower and a small tunnel in the hill.  Upon investigating the small tunnel, the party discovers that it dead ends.  As the adventure is originally written, this is true.  The tunnel really is just a dead end.

The ... hrm, what's the opposite of illusionism? ... Un-illusionism DM lets the players futz about with the tunnel, spending as much time as they want, perhaps adding a random encounter, before giving up.

An illusionism Dm takes the cues from the players that they would really like to find a secret door here that leads into the tower and takes out his Mark II Editing Pencil and quickly sketches in a small passage leading from the tunnel to another secret door in the tower.  Poof, the player's now really have no real choice.  The world has been changed to fit within a particular aesthetic.  

Or, to give another example, in a Dork Tower comic in Dragon in years back, the party is faced with two doors.  Behind one is the dreaded Deadly Marmot Trap.  The DM goes nuts waiting for the players to choose the door.  When they choose the "wrong" door, he switches the rooms so that they encounter the Deadly Marmot Trap.  - Very hard illusionism.  And most likely objectionable if the players ever found out.


----------



## Wolf1066 (May 14, 2010)

Perhaps it's just me, but I see a world of difference between a player choosing to wish for a sword or a secret tunnel and it being provided by the GM and a GM telling the players "choose between two doors, one of which leads to safety and the other of which leads to (da da da DUM...) *Certain Death*" then giving them the Certain Death option whichever door they choose.

Each involves an "illusion", to be sure, but the latter is the only one that provides the "illusion of a choice".  In the former, the player made a choice - he wants to go to the Dark Tower (chose that objective) and, further, chose that (s)he would rather go there directly.  The GM provides the means.  The choice was real, the only illusion was that the secret passage already existed in game.

In the latter, no matter what they choose - left, right, smash through the wall in between, run screaming back the way you came - you're going to get Certain Death - the "choice" was already made for the party by the GM, the idea that they *had a choice at all *was an illusion.


----------



## Hussar (May 14, 2010)

But what is the significant difference?  Scale of course, but, besides that.  In both cases, you have changed the game purely out of a sense of aesthetics.  You have taken upon yourself to alter the parameters under which the players operate and have not informed them of this fact.

Now, I totally agree that at the far end, the Door of Doom, I would certainly find this objectionable as well.  It's cheesy.  But, that doesn't mean that altering the game to let them find a secret door (or conversely, removing a secret door - is there a difference here?) isn't illusionism as well.  

Why did we add or remove the secret door?  To make a better game experience hopefully.  Why did we switch the Door of Doom?  Again, hopefully to make a better game experience.  The difference lies in degree, not in substance.


----------



## Celebrim (May 14, 2010)

Wolf1066 said:


> Perhaps it's just me, but I see a world of difference between a player choosing to wish for a sword or a secret tunnel and it being provided by the GM and a GM telling the players "choose between two doors, one of which leads to safety and the other of which leads to (da da da DUM...) *Certain Death*" then giving them the Certain Death option whichever door they choose.




LOL.  Sure, there is a difference, but it isn't in illusionism.

Look at it this way, what is the difference between the player choosing to wish for a sword and it being provided by the GM and the GM telling the players, choose a door, one of which leads to a magic sword and the other of which leads to (da da da Dum) *Certain Doom* and then giving them the magic sword option whichever door they choose?



> Each involves an "illusion", to be sure, but the latter is the only one that provides the "illusion of a choice".




Yes but the former (or my counter example) also provide the "illusion of choice", but they also provide the "illusion of success", so you are 'ok' with that.  In other words, what you mind isn't your choices being taken away from you.  You are ok with that as long as you get to appear to win.  It's like saying, "I'm ok with you providing choices, just so long as no matter what I do they always lead to what I want."



> the idea that they *had a choice at all *was an illusion.




But, this is true in the former case too, it's just more subtle.  We've recently had a poster in the legacy house rules forum whose suffering from a DM who is basically railroading them with success.  He's finding out that no matter what he chooses, he wins.  You see, the reason most players buy into

"the GM telling the players, choose a door, one of which leads to a magic sword and the other of which leads to (da da da Dum) *Certain Doom* and then giving them the magic sword option whichever door they choose?"

and not the other is because you want to.  You don't question the railroad until it becomes uncomfortable.  Most players rebel very quickly at railroaded failure, but it takes most players alot longer to pick up on railroaded success.  But reallly if you are going to object to two doors that both lead to certain doom, then in fairness you ought to object to the two doors that both lead to the magic sword.  And if you don't, you are giving thumbs up to the illusion.


----------



## Celebrim (May 14, 2010)

Mallus said:


> Well, I was assuming the player had to overcome an in-game challenge for the sword, that actual game play was involved, but I think I understand your point. It still seems like a strange thing to damage a player's suspension of disbelief -- or, rather, it suggests a person who's mindset is stuck in the conventions of AD&D, rather than in more primary sources, or in the fiction of the game.




There is a whiff of 'they are doing it wrong' in that statement that borders on suggesting that players like that must have something wrong with there heads.  I don't think you are being charitable enough to the position here, and I think perhaps it would be useful to ask where the conventions of AD&D came from rather than assuming that they are badwrongfun or obselete technology.  

The early AD&D players largely came from a wargaming background.  They were used to competitive play with the rewards of victory.  They were used to 'keeping score' and playing games with the goal of getting more skillful at playing them.  Moreover, they were used to playing games were there was a simulation going on which they liked to imagine in some way modeled or reflected the reality that intrigued them, whether it was the 100 Years War, clashes between the Hittites and the Egyptians, or the wars of medevial Poland.  They created a game which was intended to do all those things to some degree.  It was intended to keep score.  The level of the character was to some extent intended to reflect the skill of the player.  The game was meant to encourage increased skill at playing it, and the game world was intended to model a reality.  The description of the game world was a description of this reality as it actually was, and this was required so that the DM could be said to be 'playing fair' in his role of referee/antogonist.

Now, my silly description of the lurking ambush inn, while intended to be humorous is a description of your world as it actually is.  The inn has no fixed abode.  It wanders around looking for PC's to ambush, and then settles down when actually interacted with.  That's the game world you are describing.  The gameworld that the original players/designers of D&D wanted to describe was one that was consistant between groups of players.  Everyone knows where the Sign of the Prancing Phony is.



> This sounds an awful lot like sophistry (though the funny kind --I'm tempting to create the Ambush Tavern and spring it --literally- on my group). Once the players encounter a place it becomes a fixed part of the game world. But before then, what does it matter?




Maybe it doesn't matter.  I already said that in general I approve of wandering inns.  But I find it odd that I'm the one accused of sophistry here.  You are the one who describes an inn that is always where ever the players are going, and yet seems to want to insist that it doesn't move about.  That your players can't see that it moves about is the trick, but the trick is real and anyone privy to 'behind the screen' will see it.



> This describes the bulk of every campaign world I've ever built... ideas in a state of flux that don't get fixed in place until I share them w/others (ie, the get observed in play). The whole thing is illusionsim.




Well, yes, I said that too.



> Note that wasn't _exactly_ what I said: I meant players would encounter it, not necessarily step inside and engage w/the NPC's.




Well, yes, but, I suspect that if they don't step inside and engage w/the NPC's, the inn will put on a new coat of paint and follow them around until they do.



> Yes, in fact I did mean that .




Ok, so this moves the hard illusionism well beyond where I'm comfortable.  An NPC that is inescapable is railroad, and he better darn well be a near omniscient diety if he can just pop in like that.  And generally speaking, being hounded by a diety/Elmenster figure is a pretty straight forward railroad technique.



> Yes, being mindful of the implications surrounding an NPC you create is important, but that in no way implies the need nor desire to force a particular course of action on the PC's who encounter them. There's a leap of logic I'm missing here...




Let me explain then.  Remember what I said about 'rowboat settings'.  Most adventure path settings, and many so called 'sandbox settings' are really just sparcely populated rowboat settings.  What happens is that you get dumped into the setting in your rowboat near something interesting.  You can choose to investigate the thing that is interesting, or you can choose to row around looking at nothing and doing nothing.  Quite soon you realize that the DM intends you to do this, and that if you don't, no fun is going to be provided, so if you want to have fun you better do what the DM intends you to do.  After you go investigate the one interesting thing in the setting, the DM tells you were in the vast ocean to find the next interesting thing, and so on and so forth.

You are a talking about an unavoidable NPC, that can chase me down no matter what I do, and he's going to make me an offer.  And chances are, its going to be an offer I can't really refuse because otherwise, I can just diddle around in my rowboat.  And you wonder why some people don't like illusionism?


----------



## Wolf1066 (May 14, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> Look at it this way, what is the difference between the player choosing to wish for a sword and it being provided by the GM and the GM telling the players, choose a door, one of which leads to a magic sword and the other of which leads to (da da da Dum) *Certain Doom* and then giving them the magic sword option whichever door they choose?



Well, for a start, the GM didn't ask/tell the player to wish for a magic sword.

And the question is "would the magic sword have existed in story had the player not wished for it?"

Answer: most likely not.  The GM is responding to the whim of the players and "letting them win".

Yes, it's railroading in the sense that the players don't have a choice about whether they succeed or fail, but it's the choices and whims of the characters driving the game.

The "two doors" and the false choice obviously did exist prior to the session - the GM decided beforehand that the players were going to win or do something before the game started and then presents a meaningless choice.

In this case, the game is driven by the whim of the GM.



Celebrim said:


> Yes but the former (or my counter example) also provide the "illusion of choice", but they also provide the "illusion of success", so you are 'ok' with that.  In other words, what you mind isn't your choices being taken away from you.  You are ok with that as long as you get to appear to win.  It's like saying, "I'm ok with you providing choices, just so long as no matter what I do they always lead to what I want."



Actually, I didn't make any comment on what I think is OK or what I do or don't mind, I just commented that planning in advance what is going to happen then pretending the players have a choice in the matter and magicking up stuff that the players choose to want are two different very different things in a lot of ways.

For a start, one is "no matter what happens, the characters will win and I will give them what they want" while the other is "no matter what they choose, they will do what I want them to."

And I'm not saying that either is good or bad in and of itself - both can become bad if overused, each has its useful points used in moderation.

A large degree of illusionism and railroading is inherent in adventures just to get the PCs to go to where the action is and solve the problems the GM/module writer has set.  The players can wander around in circles all they like but unless they meet certain people and go to certain places, they're not going to achieve a hell of a lot.

Not unless their sole aim is power escalation and going up levels - whereupon wandering around in circles killing random monsters would be sufficient - if a somewhat boring game (for me and a lot of people I've played with over the years, anyway.)

So, if the GM decides they are going to play module X - the premise of which is they rescue the princess from the Dark Tower and learn in the process that it's part of a plot, hatched by the Grand Vizier, to overthrow the king - and the players are doing everything *but *walking into the tavern right tavern to meet NPC Thrud and read the reward notice on the wall, thus setting themselves on the path to the Dark Tower, the GM is going to make bloody sure that Thrud and the notice are in the next place the players go - even if it's the town's public toilets.

Frankly, I see nothing wrong with that.  The players still have scope to do some things their way and there should still be a fair chance of both success and failure.

If they don't wind up going to the Dark Tower, then it's likely to be a pretty short and boring game.

Deciding that the players will meet a particular person, visit a particular tavern and interact with certain PCs etc in the interests of furthering the gaming and setting them off on adventures is perfectly acceptable IMO.  Where it starts getting sticky is when the players are railroaded in such a way that they must do things exactly as the GM wants in order to succeed or ensuring there is no possible way they can loose by having every person they need to encounter appear as though by magic no matter which wrong turn they take.


----------



## Lanefan (May 14, 2010)

OK, I'm really confused (which doesn't take much doing) by all this.

First, this new "illusionism" term - new to me, anyway; I'd never heard it before reading this thread - where the bleep did this spring up from?

Second, am I to understand that illusionism is being hailed as The Next WrongBad Thing, right up there with railroading?

Third, and this question hasn't really been answered yet though it's been asked: at what point in both time and thought does "flexible adventure design" turn into "illusionism"?  For these examples, please tell me which is which...

- I decide during the week to retroactively change the back-history of my game world, the players are unaware of the change and it does not affect anything that has happened in-game {1}

- I decide on the fly that the next adventure hooks are going to lead to a different adventure than I'd originally planned, the players are *unaware* of the change but the change has been made due to unintentional player suggestion {1}

- I decide on the fly that the next adventure hooks are going to lead to a different adventure than I'd originally planned, the players are *aware* of the change (e.g. I'd already told them either in or out of game what the next adventure was going to be) {2}

- the above two again, only the decision was made during the week {1}

- I decide on the fly that something different will be behind the door they're opening than I (or the module) had originally planned, the players are unaware of the change {1}

- Provided they decide to tackle Adventure X, I decide ahead of time that no matter what they do they will meet a particular NPC at some point as this meeting is essential for the plot of Adventure X {1}

- I decide on the spur of the moment that they will meet a particular NPC *right now*, sort of like a random wandering monster only more relevant {1}

- I decide in mid-combat to change the *stats* of an opponent because it is proving too easy or too tough for what was intended {3}

- I decide in mid-combat to change the *tactics* of an opponent because it is proving too easy or too tough for what was intended {1}

{1} - I have done this in the past to a greater or lesser degree of frequency
{2} - I have not done this yet but could see it happening in the future
{3} - I have not done this and hope I never will

I suspect some of you will say all of the above are illusionism; I will counter by claiming almost every one of them as part of my right as DM, while throwing in the suggestion that this sort of thing can sometimes go both ways: sometimes the players/characters are determined to do something and-or go somewhere no matter what the DM does. 

Lan-"Illusionist"-efan


----------



## steenan (May 14, 2010)

The discussion about the "jumping tavern" made me think:

How can we tell that the tavern was moved? It would need to be somewhere else previously. And if it wasn't encountered (or even talked about) before, how can anybody say that it was somewhere else?

What I mean is that nothing can be said to exist in game (or to exist in a given state) unless it entered the shared imagination of players. To exist, something needs to be described in some way and accepted by others, according to group's social contract and rules of the game. Of course, this description does not need to be done during the session - it may be, for example, in a setting book for the game all participants agreed to play. But if it wasn't shared, how can it "exist" in what is a consensual imagination of all participants?

After something has been established as a part of the game world, it is there. It cannot be changed by a handwave. To contradict something that already entered the game, one needs a good reason, supported by the rules and group's play style. One needs consistency. For example, in D&D, if the PCs encountered a tavern but didn't enter it, it could later be stated as being an illusion (ok by the rules - no interaction, no roll for disbelief) - but then, a question would follow, who created it and why.

The idea of sharing and accepting something as a key for its in-game existence also ties to the topic of meaningful choices. No matter what the consequences are, a choice cannot be meaningful if it is not informed. If there is no way of predicting the consequences, each choice is essentially random.

Thus, if there are two ways, one leading to a treasure and the other to a monster's lair, with no way of distinguishing which is which, there is no real choice there, even though the players are free to say "we go left" or "we go right". Switching the destinations by the GM does not change anything. It's creating such a situation to begin with that may be seen as problematic in some play styles.
But when the PCs search for clues and find them, we have some established facts. The choice is informed now, and it has meaning. If the GM decided to switch the monster and the treasure now, it would both remove the choice from players and create a contradiction with what is already accepted to exist in the game world.

Of course, the contradiction is not always absolute. There are thousands of ways to shape the situation in given way. That is where plausibility comes into play. If, to introduce a new fact without contradicting previous ones, one needs an acrobatic and extremely improbable explanation, it is, in most cases, a bad idea. It will break the suspension of disbelief. And, of course, the "in most cases" clause is important here. A world where nothing improbable happens is just as implausible as the one with too many improbable events.


----------



## Argyle King (May 14, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> One quick note. Let me go ahead and define a term for what I think tends to happen when you try to run to far away from illusionism as a DM - "rowboat settings".
> 
> A rowboat setting is when the players are dropped into a (metaphorical) rowboat in an extremely broad superficially detailed setting - like say an ocean or the middle of outerspace. The players are then told to row the boat whereever they want. They can head in any direction they want.
> 
> ...





I'm not sure how accurate I feel this is.  In plenty of 'Rowboat Settings,' the players are free to build their own 'trains.'  In such a game, the plot(s) is driven by character motivation instead of "ZOMG! Orcus is taking over the world.  These four strangers who met in a tavern are the only hope.  What do you do?"

I'd say that a level based system tends to more favorably run the second style, but not all systems are level based.  

I see nothing wrong with the players playing and creating their story instead of the DM's story.  I also feel it's possible to do both, and I often do so when I create a campaign.  I inform the players of basic information about what is going on in the game world, and many of them use this information to create characters who are involved in the story arcs I have in place.  However, those characters also have motivations of their own.  

Like I said, in an open ended campaign, the players are free to build their own trains.  In a campaign I play in right now, one of my character's motivations is to gain more religious freedoms for people of his faith.  Currently, their practices are somewhat frowned upon; in some cases, violently frowned upon.  This has lead me to make choices based upon that agenda and seek to further travel the rails of that story instead of making choices based upon cool loot, experience points, and getting the next power when I level up.  In this campaign, I made character choices which I feel did get me somewhere, and they also impacted the campaign world and made me feel like my actions had deeper meaning.


----------



## Wolf1066 (May 14, 2010)

steenan said:


> How can we tell that the tavern was moved? It would need to be somewhere else previously. And if it wasn't encountered (or even talked about) before, how can anybody say that it was somewhere else?



Quite correct.  It also has other factors I'll mention below.

After something has been established as a part of the game world, it is there. It cannot be changed by a handwave. To contradict something that already entered the game, one needs a good reason, supported by the rules and group's play style. One needs consistency. For example, in D&D, if the PCs encountered a tavern but didn't enter it, it could later be stated as being an illusion (ok by the rules - no interaction, no roll for disbelief) - but then, a question would follow, who created it and why.[/QUOTE]
And if the the tavern was not talked about or encountered as in the first instance and merely seen but not entered in the directly preceding, how is anyone to know that it's _that _tavern?

Presuming of course, that "_that_" tavern is the one that the GM wants the players to enter so they will meet certain NPCs or have a particular adventure.

Taverns are all over the place, people may or may not go into them.  Sooner or later, most people do.

And as Steenan points out, unless it has previously been established that "_that _tavern" is the Duck and Drake, next to the haberdashers on the main street of Thryss in the Kingdom of Mungbean, who is going to know that the tavern (or at least the characters/events in side it) has "jumped" to wherever the PCs happen to be - except the GM, of course, as (s)he is the one who did it.

And if the GM was just waiting for the players to wander into a tavern - *any *tavern - just so (s)he could spring the events/NPCs on them...

Who cares?

Honestly.  What?  The GM should throw away a perfectly good plot they've sweated blood over or paid money for just because the PCs didn't wander into the exact tavern the GM initially decided (or module said) the events should happen in?  It's better for the players to spend their entire game night acting out the parts of a bunch of travellers who turn up at a tavern where _absolutely nothing is going on _- so as not to take away their "choice" to be bored out of their cotton-picking minds?

Frankly, if I want the players to meet a certain NPC or find themselves in the midst of a brawl or at the scene of an accident, then I'll happily move the NPC, brawlers or MVA to wherever the players decide to go - I'm not wedded to events having to happen in any particular place.  If my original imagining of the character is that he hangs out in the Bricklayer's Arms and the night I want to introduce him to the players they elect to visit the Elephant and Castle, then it's the Elephant and Castle where he appears.  In the unlikely event that it's vitally important to the plot that the pub is his usual watering hole, then that's what it'll suddenly become (players won't know I changed it and wouldn't care if they did) - and whenever they go back there, he's likely to be around.

Note that above I said "meet", "find themselves in the midst of" and "at the scene of" - I've said nothing about them agreeing to anything the NPC has offered/said or becoming involved in either situation.  Just that the opportunity is there - whether the players *choose *to do something about it is up to them.

My finding has generally been my players want me to come up with things for them to get involved in - and some have gotten rather disappointed in the past if it is obvious that I am using random variables to determine what happens/who they meet because I have skimped on prep work for the session and not put together a proper evening's gaming for them.  Frankly, they expect "a show" - and I'd better give them one, which entails dropping them into a situation.  They don't go to the pub/tavern for a quiet drink, they go there hoping something interesting is going to happen there or on the way there.

My players have no desire to sit around my lounge doing nothing and no desire to just beat on random villains that pop out of the woodwork, they want an adventure that takes them places and stretches their boundaries.  So even if I candidly said "I've been waiting for you to go to a pub for ages so I could hit you with that scenario", my players wouldn't give a damn.

And frankly, if someone did it to me, I wouldn't care, either - provided the evening's gaming was fun and I got to roleplay in an interesting situation.

However, if I told them in repeatedly and well in advance that Mick the Fink always hangs out at the Lido surrounded by his cronies and then spring an encounter with him on them while they're at the Rose and Crown, they'd certainly have an issue with the lack of consistency - unless I could provide a plausible explanation for the change.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 14, 2010)

Hussar said:


> How so?  How is it different, other than in degree.



The degree *is* the difference. I can see the argument that it's just a matter of scale. But scale is extremely important, you can't ignore it in anything other than a semantic exercise.

Nearly any method a DM might use to run a game is bad if he uses it too often, or on too large a scale. So the degree is very important, when you're talking about the game at the table.



Hussar said:


> The player has made a choice - I want X for my character. You deliberately provide X. That has changed the game so that the player's choice didn't actually matter. He could have chosen Y and he'd find Y or Z or XKCD or whatever. No matter what he chooses, he will receive it. Not easily hopefully, and not immediately, but, he's still going to get it.



This seems fallacious to me. Couldn't you just as easily argue that this ensures that a player's choice matters? If the DM decides what the player is going to get, regardless of what the player wants (or chooses), how does that make the player's choice meaningful? Isn't that the definition of hard illusionism we're working with here?

Player chooses A, B or C. DM is only providing B. Player gets B, regardless of what he actually chose.



Hussar said:


> An illusionism Dm takes the cues from the players that they would really like to find a secret door here that leads into the tower and takes out his Mark II Editing Pencil and quickly sketches in a small passage leading from the tunnel to another secret door in the tower.  Poof, the player's now really have no real choice.  The world has been changed to fit within a particular aesthetic.



I can see that as an example of hard illusionism, and it is (to me) one technique of many in the DM's toolbox, which can be effective if used sparingly.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 14, 2010)

Wolf1066 said:


> Yes, it's railroading in the sense that the players don't have a choice about whether they succeed or fail, but it's the choices and whims of the characters driving the game.
> 
> The "two doors" and the false choice obviously did exist prior to the session - the GM decided beforehand that the players were going to win or do something before the game started and then presents a meaningless choice.
> 
> In this case, the game is driven by the whim of the GM.



This is what I was getting at. If hard illusionism involves giving the players false choices, then the magic sword example is not hard illusionism. There is no false choice there, there is an actual choice made by the player. Now, if it were carried to extremes (the players want the BBEG to suddenly drop dead, so he does and they win the campaign!), that would be a bad thing.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 14, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> I suspect some of you will say all of the above are illusionism; I will counter by claiming almost every one of them as part of my right as DM, while throwing in the suggestion that this sort of thing can sometimes go both ways: sometimes the players/characters are determined to do something and-or go somewhere no matter what the DM does.



They would all fall within the definition of "soft illusionism" presented here. Which to me is simply part of the DM's role in the game. Games where there is no soft illusionism at all would be incredibly rare, I think, especially if you argue that any improvisation done by the DM during a game would fall within that definition.


----------



## Celebrim (May 14, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> First, this new "illusionism" term - new to me, anyway; I'd never heard it before reading this thread - where the bleep did this spring up from?




I assume its a Forgeism.  I heard it four or five years ago.



> Second, am I to understand that illusionism is being hailed as The Next WrongBad Thing, right up there with railroading?




No, but it looks like that is the way everyone is responding to it.  Personally, if you know me, I'm not even one that accuses railroading of a being bad.  I'm not a 'there is only one way to do it' sort of player or DM.  I admire skillfully done railroads and skillfully done sandboxes.  I admire well done high illusionism and well done high simulation.  I admire well done power gaming, well done hack n' slash, and well done low melodrama.  I like sim play, nar play, and competive gamist play.  If anything, I'm the sort that would suggest that far from there being only one way to do it, the skillful DM and the player ought to be sampling from all of these things.



> - I decide during the week to retroactively change the back-history of my game world, the players are unaware of the change and it does not affect anything that has happened in-game {1}




I'm not sure that there is a term for that.



> I decide on the fly that the next adventure hooks are going to lead to a different adventure than I'd originally planned, the players are *unaware* of the change but the change has been made due to unintentional player suggestion




You don't give me enough details to comment.  Generally in that situation my advice would be to throw out both hooks and see which one they want to bite.



> I decide on the fly that the next adventure hooks are going to lead to a different adventure than I'd originally planned, the players are *aware* of the change (e.g. I'd already told them either in or out of game what the next adventure was going to be)




Well, that is definately not illusionism, and is in fact participationism.  The DM sets the goals and the players willingly agree to play whatever the DM provides for them.



> I decide on the fly that something different will be behind the door they're opening than I (or the module) had originally planned, the players are unaware of the change {1}




Not enough information to go on.  The timing of the event is unimportant.  



> Provided they decide to tackle Adventure X, I decide ahead of time that no matter what they do they will meet a particular NPC at some point as this meeting is essential for the plot of Adventure X {1}




Ok, so long as you are completely serious about 'no matter what they do', that is both hard illusionism and railroad.  This is similar in concept to God ordering Jonah to go to Ninevah (in modern Iraq), Jonah heading in the opposite direction (to Spain), and God insuring that Jonah (by way of storms and giant groupers) ends up in Ninevah anyway.  If you mean however, "The NPC will meet the party if they are at a time and place were the event reasonably could happen given the resources, habits, and knowledge of the NPC", then that is (at most) soft illusionism.  A soft illusionism example would be the PC's happening to be near the scene of a crime in progress that provides the PC's the first clue about a larger conspiracy, or a close associate of the PC's being a victim of a larger conspiracy.   That's a standard trope of the heroic genera and occurs across all fictional mediums.  It's such a basic assumption of fiction (heroes are always at the right place at the right time) that its not usually questioned.  Batman always happens to be near the scene of any random crime.  But of course, in reality, you've probably never been near a mugging in progress, and probably couldn't find one if you tried and Batman would do no better at it.  A simulation example (no illusionism) would be picking 4 or 5 places that the NPC frequents on a regular basis and deciding the rules for how the NPC is found or finds the players ahead of time in a way that you feel best approximates how a real person would behave in the NPC's situation.  Of course, in the simulation route, you are risking that the NPC doesn't actually find the players which means you better have other oppurtunities for fun in the event that doesn't happen.



> I decide on the spur of the moment that they will meet a particular NPC *right now*, sort of like a random wandering monster only more relevant.




Not enough information to go on.  The timing of the event is unimportant. 



> I decide in mid-combat to change the *stats* of an opponent because it is proving too easy or too tough for what was intended




Illusionism.



> I decide in mid-combat to change the *tactics* of an opponent because it is proving too easy or too tough for what was intended




Probably illusionism.  If you hit upon a new more effective tactic for the monster mid-combat and decide that the monster would fight that way because its got a high intelligence, then that's not illusionism.  That's simply you RPing the NPC effectively.  If you change tactics to achieve some meta-game goal (keeping the players alive, making the fight more exciting), rather than because the NPC is fighting for his life, that is illusionism.



> I suspect some of you will say all of the above are illusionism




Why?



> I will counter by claiming almost every one of them as part of my right as DM...




You realize I'm an ardent supporter of Rule 0, right?  In other threads, I'm frequently accused of being that abusive DM because I strongly support GM empowering system designs.   I'm not going to argue with the any assertion of the rights of the DM.  So you are in fact not 'countering' me at all, as I fully agree with pretty much any assertion of the right of the DM to control his game.  I'll go even further.  Not only can the DM alter the setting, the DM has a right to alter the rules of the game in mid-play as far as I'm concerned.  The only question is whether doing so represents skillful play by a DM.  My initial focus was simply to define the term - not condemn it.  My interest isn't in 'dumb' questions like 'isn't that badwrongfun', but rather in questions like, 'What are examples of skillful illusionist techniques, and what are examples of ones that should be used more sparingly or perhaps not even at all?' or 'How much illusionism is too much?'


----------



## howandwhy99 (May 14, 2010)

I stated earlier that I see RPGs as pattern finding games because it is the manner in which they have been played for most of the hobby.  For example, the DM says the walls are there, the floor, the ceiling, etc.  I tell him I look again, they are still there.  I thrust my hand at the wall and it stops. I try again and it stops again. Over and over.  "There must be a rule there".

Compare that to more current designs.  Tom wants the tunnel to split left and right about 40' ahead.  I want it to go forward until it's out of sight, well over 40'.  We roll dice, or do whatever, and who ever wins that game we play gets to say what happens in the story.  

For my games I run them as situational puzzle games.  That means I have a simulation game behind a screen that is designed as a cooperation game. Each of the players is attempting to get as many points as possible as that is the objective of the game, but cooperative strategies, the types of choices they make, work better than competitive ones for accomplishing their individual objective.  It's a situational puzzle game because the simulation game rules are unknown to the players, behind a screen, and irrelevant answers receive a "yes" because they are irrelevant.  However, they cannot then go back and contradict these Yes answers.  "You said you did the watusi this turn, that's what you did."  If others ask what that means, I refer them to the player who did it.  If further actions require me to know exactly what it means to do the watusi, I ask and apply whatever falls under the rules to the game.  Asking for clarification until I understand what this means under the rules (the code being broken) is one of the biggest parts of DMing IMO.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 15, 2010)

howandwhy99 said:


> For my games I run them as situational puzzle games. That means I have a simulation game behind a screen that is designed as a cooperation game. Each of the players is attempting to get as many points as possible as that is the objective of the game, but cooperative strategies, the types of choices they make, work better than competitive ones for accomplishing their individual objective.




Oh Daniel-san, you run tournament? Players play for points?


----------



## LostSoul (May 15, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> OK, I'm really confused (which doesn't take much doing) by all this.
> 
> First, this new "illusionism" term - new to me, anyway; I'd never heard it before reading this thread - where the bleep did this spring up from?




From the Forge.  Here is what they have to say about it:

Illusionism

A family of Techniques in which a GM, usually in the interests of story creation, story creation, exerts Force over player-character decisions, in which he or she has authority over resolution-outcomes, and in which the players do not necessarily recognize these features. See Illusionism: a new look and a new approach and Illusionism and GNS. Term coined by Paul Elliott.​
Which means we have to look at the definition of "Force".

The Technique of control over characters' thematically-significant decisions by anyone who is not the character's player. When Force is applied in a manner which disrupts the Social Contract, the result is Railroading. Originally called "GM-oomph" (Ron Edwards), then "GM-Force" (Mike Holmes).​
If I am using those terms when I consider your examples, I'm left with... not much.  You can see how I can't say if it's Illusionism or not, because I don't know what the "thematically-significant" decisions for your group are, nor what your "Social Contract" is.


----------



## The Shaman (May 15, 2010)

So according to *Wolf1066*, a proper evening's gaming is one where the referee sweats blood (or spends hard-earned money) to prepare (or buy) a perfectly good plot for the players to be involved in.

Personally, if I wanted to spend an evening being led around by the nose, I'd go to the mall with my wife. 

It's great to be reminded of the tremendous diversity of interests and expectations among gamers. It's also good to know who you should never, ever play with.


----------



## The Shaman (May 15, 2010)

LostSoul said:


> If I am using those terms when I consider your examples, I'm left with... not much.



That's one of the reasons I linked the illusionism definition I did upthread; the Forge is often a model of obscurity and pedantry masquerading as erudition.


----------



## Wolf1066 (May 15, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> So according to *Wolf1066*, a proper evening's gaming is one where the referee sweats blood (or spends hard-earned money) to prepare (or buy) a perfectly good plot for the players to be involved in.



Hmmmm, nowhere did I say it was the "proper" evening's gaming.  I don't think in terms of "proper" or "not proper" - nor do I go around saying "that method of gaming/playing/GMing is a Big Bad".

I stated what I and my characters prefer - it's our particular social contract.  They expect that I'm going to throw them interesting people to meet and interesting situations and the occasional curve ball - and I expect the same from my GM if/when I'm playing in a game run by someone else.  It's all part of the fun for us.



The Shaman said:


> Personally, if I wanted to spend an evening being led around by the nose, I'd go to the mall with my wife.



I wonder, in that case, what role you see the GM performing, if any form of attempting to direct the players somewhere or to something - or actually planning an adventure, NPCs etc - is so "evil"?  Is it just to sit there and roll dice on tables to see if the players encounter something and, if they do, what it is?

Players decide to go right, GM rolls die, players go left, GM rolls die, table says there's an NPC (more dice) - 3rd level Gnome Fighter - players decide to kill it, GM rolls dice, players kill it, GM rolls die, it has (more dice) 300gp, players take it, players decide to go ahead, GM rolls die...

And gods forfend that the GM actually have any fun by springing an NPC on the party.

If that's the case, why have a GM at all?  Honestly, sounds like (s)he'd have more fun sitting down with the rest of the players and joining in the discussion on which way they will go without a nasty GM to inflict plots or preplanned surprises on them.  They could all just roll on tables to decide what's in front of them and never mind the fact that they've just turned left four times and encountered something completely different...

Who needs a GM - a group of people, some dice and a selection of tables with random things on them.

But then, the table designers are foisting their choices on you by putting only certain things in the tables - Illusionism on their part.



The Shaman said:


> It's great to be reminded of the tremendous diversity of interests and expectations among gamers. It's also good to know who you should never, ever play with.



Well, at least we agree on a couple of things


----------



## Lanefan (May 15, 2010)

LostSoul said:


> From the Forge.  Here is what they have to say about it:
> 
> Illusionism
> 
> ...



So...er...given this - and a few other examples I've seen over time that from what I can tell take a fun hobby and turn it into Serious Business - why are we paying any attention at all to what this 'Forge' (whatever it is) has to say?  Would we be better off just ignoring it completely and getting on with our games?

Lan-"I don't know what the "thematically-significant" decisions for my group are either"-efan


----------



## The Shaman (May 15, 2010)

Wolf1066 said:


> Hmmmm, nowhere did I say it was the "proper" evening's gaming.



Are you sure about that?







Wolf1066 said:


> My finding has generally been my players want me to come up with things for them to get involved in - and some have gotten rather disappointed in the past if it is obvious that I am using random variables to determine what happens/who they meet because I have skimped on prep work for the session and not put together *a proper evening's gaming* for them.



I tried to quote you as closely as possible in my summary.







Wolf1066 said:


> I stated what I and my characters prefer - it's our particular social contract.  They expect that I'm going to throw them interesting people to meet and interesting situations and the occasional curve ball - and I expect the same from my GM if/when I'm playing in a game run by someone else.  It's all part of the fun for us.



I present the players with interesting people and interesting situations and more than an occasional curveball - what I don't do is string those together into a complete ballgame. That's for the players to do.







Wolf1066 said:


> I wonder, in that case, what role you see the GM performing . . .



Run the setting in response to the players and the characters.







Wolf1066 said:


> . . . if any form of attempting to direct the players somewhere or to something - or actually planning an adventure, NPCs etc - is so "evil"?



Did I actually use the word "evil?"

I don't like referees who insist on inflicting their plots on my character. I particularly dislike illusionism, and in reference to the latter I used the word "anathema" - "something intensely disliked or loathed" - but did I really call either of these "evil?"







Wolf1066 said:


> Is it just to sit there and roll dice on tables to see if the players encounter something and, if they do, what it is?
> 
> Players decide to go right, GM rolls die, players go left, GM rolls die, table says there's an NPC (more dice) - 3rd level Gnome Fighter . . .



Stop there for a moment.

Who is he? Why is he there? Where is he going? Where's he been? What're his likes and dislikes, his fears and his aspirations, his strengths and weaknesses? You seem to be assuming that a randomly encountered npc doesn't include any of the same character-building that a purpose-built npc does, but that's by no means a given. While some referees are sweating and bleeding over their perfectly good plots, I'm rolling up my random encounters and answering these kinds of questions before we sit down at the table, so that gnome fighter isn't a nameless, faceless, souless tally of experience points and treasure . . .







Wolf1066 said:


> . . . players decide to kill it, GM rolls dice, players kill it, GM rolls die, it has (more dice) 300gp, players take it . . .



. . . on the way to the next encounter in the referee's notes, but rather a living, breathing part of the game-world.

This is what I do when I'm behind the screen: I bring the game-world to life around the adventurers.

What the players _do_ with that game-world is the adventure. Maybe the gnome becomes an ally. Maybe he becomes a rival. Maybe he provides them with some information, or they provide some to him. The thread that stitches these encounters together is provided by the players and their characters. The reason this works is that the adventurers are pursuing the goals the players set for them, chasing their dreams instead of a 'plot.' That random npc may become a recurring character in the game, even an integral one, because of what the adventurers do, not the referee.

Random isn't brainless, nor is it boring. Unless the referee is, of course.







Wolf1066 said:


> And gods forfend that the GM actually have any fun by springing an NPC on the party.



There are few things I enjoy more than springing npcs on the adventurers. It's where the game lives.







Wolf1066 said:


> If that's the case, why have a GM at all?



Why indeed?


Wolf1066 said:


> Honestly, sounds like (s)he'd have more fun sitting down with the rest of the players and joining in the discussion on which way they will go without a nasty GM to inflict plots or preplanned surprises on them.  They could all just roll on tables to decide what's in front of them and never mind the fact that they've just turned left four times and encountered something completely different...
> 
> Who needs a GM - a group of people, some dice and a selection of tables with random things on them.



Because the referee runs the setting. Someone needs to take the results of those rolls and those tables and intepret the results, give them a sense of place, enable them to react to the adventurers in meaningful ways.







Wolf1066 said:


> But then, the table designers are foisting their choices on you by putting only certain things in the tables - Illusionism on their part.



No, that's setting-building, and it has nothing to do with illusionism in that it doesn't present the players with false choices and meaningless decisions.


----------



## Wolf1066 (May 15, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> Are you sure about that?



I thought I was... 



The Shaman said:


> I present the players with interesting people and interesting situations and more than an occasional curveball - what I don't do is string those together into a complete ballgame.



And in what way is the springing of a particular tavern with particular NPCs and an interesting situation (as I was referring to in my post) "stringing those together into a complete ballgame"?

When you create those interesting people, situations and curveballs - prior to game time, going by the next quote, in what way are you disagreeing with my practice of creating interesting people, situations and curveballs?

I'm not saying that the characters have to respond to them in a certain way - my notes are full of "contingencies" as it were: all the information I think I might need no matter which way they decide to play it.  If they plan to fight, fine, I've got the stats for that, if they want to get information, I have that, too - and so on.



The Shaman said:


> Who is he? Why is he there? Where is he going? Where's he been? What're his likes and dislikes, his fears and his aspirations, his strengths and weaknesses? You seem to be assuming that a randomly encountered npc doesn't include any of the same character-building that a purpose-built npc does, but that's by no means a given. While some referees are sweating and bleeding over their perfectly good plots, I'm rolling up my random encounters and answering these kinds of questions *before we sit down at the table*, so that gnome fighter isn't a nameless, faceless, souless tally of experience points and treasure . . .. . . on the way to the next encounter in the referee's notes, but rather a living, breathing part of the game-world.



And a "random" encounter worked out _prior to the game_ differs from what I was discussing in what respect?  

You seem to be assuming that because I said I have no problem with a situation or an NPC being sprung on the PCs, that they are expected to respond to it in a set way.

That is not the case at all - I provide the "stories" that are running in the place they are in - "stories" (_lives _of NPCs who have goals within the game world) that the players can interact with *as they like* - or not if they so desire, they can wander off elsewhere. But I see nothing wrong with springing one of those stories - in the form of those NPCs or their actions - on the PCs, wherever and whenever might reasonably fit in with the game world.



The Shaman said:


> What the players _do_ with that game-world is the adventure. Maybe the gnome becomes an ally. Maybe he becomes a rival. Maybe he provides them with some information, or they provide some to him.



And the same happens in the adventures I run.  A case in point:  I decided to see how the players would react to being not merely mugged, but mugged by an armed 11-year-old.  Legally, they could shoot him as a clear and present danger, realistically, however, they'd cop all kinds of flak for that and probably wouldn't feel too great.

So the next time the players were just wandering about on foot, I had this character accost them at gunpoint.  I had no idea how they would react - kill him, disarm him somehow, no idea.

One of the players gave him the money from his wallet and said "I like your style, if you want to earn more, I've got work for you."

The player then worked the kid into a plot he came up with to mess with the heads of the other player characters.  He told me in secret what he was doing or planning so I could convey to the PCs what they saw going on around them.  They had utterly no idea that a lot of what was happening was being done by this kid at a fellow player's behest.

The kid was a character I created and sprung on them - they "had no choice" about that.  And that sounds remarkably similar to:



The Shaman said:


> There are few things I enjoy more than springing npcs on the adventurers. It's where the game lives.






The Shaman said:


> No, that's setting-building, and it has nothing to do with illusionism in that it doesn't present the players with false choices and meaningless decisions.



And likewise, creating a world with a large number of "known quantities" in it, ready made NPCs with their own agendas and goals bustling around in that world and striving to get what they want is "setting-building" as well.

There's a world of difference, as previously noted, between a "false choice" of whether or not they *encounter* a situation or character (which, going by your post you seem to have no problem with) and a false choice of whether or not they succeed (all doors lead to the magic sword or whatever).


----------



## Fifth Element (May 15, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> I tried to quote you as closely as possible in my summary.



You missed the rather important part that followed immediately after the part you bolded: "_*...**for them*_." I'd say that makes a difference.​


----------



## Celebrim (May 15, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> That's one of the reasons I linked the illusionism definition I did upthread; the Forge is often a model of obscurity and pedantry masquerading as erudition.




Agreed.  In my opinion, if you cut through all the Derrida crap and philosophical pretension, what you usually find underneath is someone who is saying that every one else is doing it wrong.

Personally, I find the term Illusionism useful, because its something I've done and something that I've had done to me, but had no umberella term for discussing the technique.

I'm not even necessarily saying that a railroad is 'doing it wrong', because there are players out there (I've got one in my current group) that want to ride a railroad and are open in hoping that you've got a nice train and that its going to roll through beautiful scenery.


----------



## The Shaman (May 15, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> You missed the rather important part that followed immediately after the part you bolded: "_*...**for them*_." I'd say that makes a difference.​



I'm sure you would.

I don't.


----------



## The Shaman (May 15, 2010)

Wolf1066 said:


> I thought I was...






Wolf1066 said:


> And in what way is the springing of a particular tavern with particular NPCs and an interesting situation (as I was referring to in my post) "stringing those together into a complete ballgame"?



The veil of ignorance - hold that thought, and I'll come back to that in a moment.







Wolf1066 said:


> When you create those interesting people, situations and curveballs - prior to game time, going by the next quote, in what way are you disagreeing with my practice of creating interesting people, situations and curveballs?



I'm not disagreeing with it; in fact I'm agreeing with it, but my process and motives may be, or at least appear to be, different from yours.







Wolf1066 said:


> I'm not saying that the characters have to respond to them in a certain way - my notes are full of "contingencies" as it were: all the information I think I might need no matter which way they decide to play it.  If they plan to fight, fine, I've got the stats for that, if they want to get information, I have that, too - and so on.



Same here, but the $64,000 question is, is the encounter an "adventure hook" intended to snag the players and their characters, is it in the furtherance of your sweat- and blood-stained plot, or is it complete in and of itself, with no strings attached save the ones the adventurers give it?







Wolf1066 said:


> And a "random" encounter worked out _prior to the game_ differs from what I was discussing in what respect?



Still holding that thought? Okay, here we go.

The difference is the veil of ignorance. The veil of ignorance is a legal philosophy of justice designed to promote equality and fairness by advancing a social contract in which , " . . . no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status; nor does he know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence and strength, and the like . . ." (John Rawls, _A Theory of Justice_). The idea is that if no one knows if they will be rich or poor, educated or ignorant, healthy or infirm, competent or inept, it's possible to fashion a social contract which provides the highest degree of justice and equality for all.

When I'm behind the screen, I set out to create a game-world which emulates a particular genre: for _Traveller_ it's the space traders of Poul Andersen and CJ Cherryh, for _Flashing Blades_ it's the 17th century swashbucklers of Alexandre Dumas, Rafael Sabatini, Baroness Orzcy, and Arturo Pérez-Reverte, for _Boot Hill_ it's the comic-westerns of Pete Dexter and Larry McMurtry, and so on. The genres provide the 'facts' of the setting.

The veil of ignorance as it applies to my gaming is to presume nothing about the assets and abilities of the adventurers in preparing the setting. My goal is to provide the players and their characters with a shared world which emulates the game-genre but makes no assumptions about the adventurers' course within it. The setting reflects the themes of the source lit and reacts to the adventurers in ways consistent with the genre - and that's where I stop. There are no daisy-chains of encounters, no adventure paths, no referee-written story to act out.

This allows me to keep the lightest possible touch on the 'controls' of the game and maximizes freedom of action for the players and their characters. In my experience increasing stochasticity keeps the game always a little off-balance, forever tilting in unexpected directions, which for me is what is most fun about roleplaying games.

Now you may be nodding along and saying to yourself, "But that's what I do, too!" If so, that's great; we may not be so far apart in our gaming styles as it seems at first blush. But when you talk about a preparing a  "perfectly good plot" involving the players and their characters, or creating a specific encounter or location to spring on the adventurers when you think it's appropriate or amusing, well, that's where you lose me, *W#*.







Wolf1066 said:


> You seem to be assuming that because I said I have no problem with a situation or an NPC being sprung on the PCs, that they are expected to respond to it in a set way.
> 
> That is not the case at all - I provide the "stories" that are running in the place they are in - "stories" (_lives _of NPCs who have goals within the game world) that the players can interact with *as they like* - or not if they so desire, they can wander off elsewhere. But I see nothing wrong with springing one of those stories - in the form of those NPCs or their actions - on the PCs, wherever and whenever might reasonably fit in with the game world.



Again, not so far off from my approach. The difference is that you perhaps put a heavier touch on the collective than I do, since my random encounters are designed to reflect the setting and not to present a specific challenge to a known group of adventurers.







Wolf1066 said:


> And likewise, creating a world with a large number of "known quantities" in it, ready made NPCs with their own agendas and goals bustling around in that world and striving to get what they want is "setting-building" as well.



Agreed.







Wolf1066 said:


> There's a world of difference, as previously noted, between a "false choice" of whether or not they *encounter* a situation or character (which, going by your post you seem to have no problem with) and a false choice of whether or not they succeed (all doors lead to the magic sword or whatever).



No, I very much have a problem with, "All roads lead to my super-133+ encounter!" That's illusionism, and I don't like it one bit.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 15, 2010)

Never mind - misread post.


----------



## jaerdaph (May 15, 2010)

RPGs are... Rocket Propelled Grenades.

Just like AD&D is... ...Accidental Death & Dismemberment insurance....


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 15, 2010)

TS, doesn't your choice of system and genre already tell you a lot about who the PCs are and what they want? They won't be farmers. They won't be female. They're going to be young, physically capable, highly motivated men seeking fame and/or fortune and quite prepared to put their own life and liberty at risk, as well as the lives of others, in pursuit of those goals.

Armed with that information you can make pretty accurate predictions about how they'll behave. For example, dangle a reasonable opportunity for adventure in front of them and they will bite the hook.

Really, this is how the vast majority of rpgs work. It's an, often unspoken, assumption that the PCs will be adventurers, prepared to take quite extraordinary physical risks in pursuit of glory, treasure and going up levels.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 15, 2010)

I wonder if part of the disagreement in what should be called illusionism in this thread has to do with the separation between players and characters.

It seems to me that Celebrim's definition of soft illusionism could also be called player illusionism, while hard illusionism could be called character illusionism. A true false choice (no matter what the characters do, they end up in Encounter X) has to do with making character action irrelevant. 

Some people, me included, would argue that since we all know we're playing a game when we play, soft illusionism isn't avoidable, nor should it be avoided. That it's very different from hard illusionism, and really shouldn't be included in the same category.

Soft illusionism is almost always there, and does nothing to harm the typical game, often improving it in fact. Hard illusionism can be avoided entirely if desired, and if overused (or used at all for some groups) can be a very bad thing for the game. Lumping them both together under "illusionism" doesn't seem right to me.


----------



## The Shaman (May 15, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> TS, doesn't your choice of system and genre already tell you a lot about who the PCs are and what they want?



Great question, *McC*.

My answer is, I hope it does. I try to pick a system which I think reflects the genre conceits; it's one of the reasons I moved away from generic systems toward games which are more purpose-built. I encourage the players to think in terms of the genre when they're creating their characters.

But "swashbucklers" is also a pretty diverse genre. Peter Blood, Sakr-al-Bahr, D'Artagnan, the Scarlet Pimpernel, Captain Alatriste - similar milieu, different characters with very different life-histories, in my opinion.







Doug McCrae said:


> They won't be farmers.



Gentleman-farmers with an estate, perhaps, but not tillers, no.

That's one of the big differences between _Flashing Blades_ and _Maelstrom_. _Maelstrom_ characters may be cobblers and tinkers and swordsmiths and merchants; _Flashing Blades_ characters may be bravos and pirates, but the system provides more support for soldiers or gentlemen or nobles.







Doug McCrae said:


> They won't be female.



I'm willing to accept a bit of anachronism there. A female adventurer is quite exceptional, and that will be reflected in how the setting treats her, but exceptional women are found in all eras and all places, so while it may be genre-bending, it's not genre-breaking.







Doug McCrae said:


> They're going to be young, physically capable, independent men seeking fame and/or fortune and quite prepared to put their own life and liberty at risk, as well as the lives of others, in pursuit of those goals.



Again, I hope so.

But consider the goals of three different _FB_ characters: one wants to succeed Richelieu, one wants to be the captain-lieutenant of the King's Musketeers, and one wants to be a masked avenger righting wrongs on behalf of the downtrodden.

All may be "young, physically capable, independent men seeking fame and/or fortune and quite prepared to put their own life and liberty at risk," but that's pretty much the view from twenty-thousand feet; zoom in a bit and distinctions come into sharp relief.

What I prefer to do is let the players sort out how these characters are going to merge their goals and act in concert to achieve them. I'll ply them with all the information they ask for, through their Contacts, their friends and allies, to help them achieve their aspirations. But I won't try to lead them there by weaving a daisy-chain for them. The players and their characters generate encounters more than I do.







Doug McCrae said:


> Armed with that information you can make pretty accurate predictions about how they'll behave. For example, dangle a reasonable opportunity for adventure in front of them and they will bite the hook.



And if I've done my job the way I hope to, they are surrounded by adventure in every direction. All they have to do is push, and the world pushes back.







Doug McCrae said:


> Really, this is how the vast majority of rpgs work. It's an, often unspoken, assumption that the PCs will be adventurers, prepared to take quite extraordinary physical risks in pursuit of glory, treasure and going up levels.



That's how it _should_ be, in my humble opinion. Some players seem to forget that from time to time.

I agree that the overwhelming majority of roleplaying games are run with the referee providing a plot and the players hunting about for the plot hooks then buckling in for the ride.

But what do you suppose would happen if those same characters, "prepared to take quite extraordinary physical risks in pursuit of glory, treasure and" personal advancement, found themselves in a world where a hooded stranger in a tavern didn't offer them a map one evening? What would they do then?

That's the game I run right there.


----------



## Hussar (May 16, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> I wonder if part of the disagreement in what should be called illusionism in this thread has to do with the separation between players and characters.
> 
> It seems to me that Celebrim's definition of soft illusionism could also be called player illusionism, while hard illusionism could be called character illusionism. A true false choice (no matter what the characters do, they end up in Encounter X) has to do with making character action irrelevant.
> 
> ...




At the end of the day, you're probably right.  Being a bit more specific - introducing the idea of hard vs soft illusionism is probably a good thing.  As you say, soft illusionism goes on in the game all the time.  It's practically unavoidable unless you try really, really hard.  Hard illusionism, like railroading, is more likely to be objectionable, since it's so heavy handed.

Then again, if the players don't know, then if done right, there likely is no problem.

Two similar examples:

Running an adventure, the players get stuck at a point.  They have analysis paralysis, or just fixate on one thing, or whatever, but, in any case wind up spending far too much time navel gazing and the game is dragging.

We've likely all run into this from time to time.

The Dm looks down, and immedietely blows something up.  Not literally of course - it could be a "random" encounter, it could be an NPC popping up, it could actually be a large explosion nearby - just to get the action rolling again.  

This, to me, would be hard illusionism.  But not necessarily bad.

Another example:

A poster on the boards and I misremember who (Bullgrit?  Crothian?) recently posted about an OSR one shot he ran for his group using the Basic D&D rules and the B1 module.  During his post, he talks about how the party chose the most boring route through the dungeon.  They hit just about every empty room while randomly avoiding all the interesting stuff.  At the end of the session, the players were less than excited about the game because it was boring.  Not through anyone's fault, it was just random.

Now, imagine instead, after about twenty or thirty minutes of empty rooms, the DM sees that they are coming up to yet another empty room.  Quickly scanning the adventure, he switches the empty room for the similarly sized room full of giant rats.  Again, hard illusionism.  The players didn't choose that room.  They in fact, chose a totally different room.

And, probably the right thing to do.

Which brings us back to the Door of Doom example.  While I agree that this could be a very bad thing, it could be exactly like the situation above.  The game is dragging, energy is low, enthusiasm is low, and the DM moves the Door of Doom to spice things up.

Totally hard illusionism, I think.  But, probably justifiable.


----------



## Wolf1066 (May 16, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Running an adventure, the players get stuck at a point.  They have analysis paralysis, or just fixate on one thing, or whatever, but, in any case wind up spending far too much time navel gazing and the game is dragging.
> 
> We've likely all run into this from time to time.



Gods, have I ever!  Generally fixed as you suggest, with the GM throwing something into the mix to stir up the pot a bit and get the players moving.


----------



## Celebrim (May 16, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Now, imagine instead, after about twenty or thirty minutes of empty rooms, the DM sees that they are coming up to yet another empty room.  Quickly scanning the adventure, he switches the empty room for the similarly sized room full of giant rats.  Again, hard illusionism.  The players didn't choose that room.  They in fact, chose a totally different room.
> 
> And, probably the right thing to do.
> 
> ...




I would generally agree, however, I'd like to suggest that there is an even better technique.  Prior to the adventure remove the empty rooms from the map, thereby creating a world without empty rooms.   In this way, when you play the game, you remove the need to resort to hard illusionism.

This by the way is a soft illusionism technique.  

Any honest attempt at simulation suggests that there is going to be alot of uninteresting space in the world.  The module B1, as a very early module and grounded in the early simulation mindset of D&D (and early RPGs generally), may well have been designed with the empty spaces for this exact reason - empty spaces where there isn't something particularly interesting are very realistic.  However, what this realistic simulation technique implies is that there is a risk that a random walk through the setting will result in boredom.  In fact, the designer of B1 has inadvertantly created a sparsely populated rowboat setting.  You can go whereever you want (usually at great effort) but there is no gaurantee that you'll actually get anywhere.

Since this is generally not alot of fun for the GM either, the experienced GM - who learns to hate empty rooms with a passion exceeding that of the players, because really, describing empty rooms suck - starts removing them from his world, both within the dungeon and the metaphorical empty rooms without.  The result is either, depending on the inclinations of the GM, an adventure path setting (linear), or a more densely populated version of a rowboat setting - aka a sandbox (non-linear).  

In actuality, these two things represent playable ideals and most GMs mix and match between them at various stages in the career of the PC's, a technique I've seen elsewhere described as 'narrow-broad-narrow', as PC's move back and forth between adventure paths (of various lengths) and sandboxes (of various sizes) without alot of consideration for the purity of their techniques.  In my opinion, the main advantage of this from the standpoint of entertaining your players is that it allows the GM to manage a mixed group of players who have different tastes.  Some players may relish the freedom of a sandbox, while some other players may detest it.  If you have both players at your table, you can entertain both by having short linear stretches and small sandboxes.  At various times, the individual player isn't getting exactly what he wants, but knows that if he applies himself to the less interesting stretch of play then he'll soon be back to his favorite.  Players in this way tend to get more rounded in thier tastes as well, better enjoying the alternative style of play and the merits of it.  If you have a player who has done nothing but sandboxes his whole career, he's likely to rebel at the lack of freedom he discerns in your adventure path and complain of being 'dragged around'.  If you have a player who has done nothing but adventure paths, he's likely to complain of the lack of direction if you drop him in a large sandbox.   The player feed a mixed diet will more likely be happy in both.


----------



## Celebrim (May 16, 2010)

Now, let's move back a second and look at the big picture. 

Someone reading this thread may be inclined to think I've hijacked it and gone off on a tangent that is completely off topic.  

I don't believe that is the case.  I believe I've brought the discussion back to place that is very relevant to the original poster's point.

Role Playing Games are Role Playing Games.  The discussion we've been having about creating good RPG literature has no real parallel in the creation of any form of non-gaming literature.  You can't really have hard illusionism in a novel, because the words are fixed on the page and do not move in response to the reader's perception of those words.  You wouldn't try to teach someone about writing novels or screenplays by explaining illusionism, adventure paths, sandboxes, and narrow-broad-narrow.  This is entirely a discussion relevant to RPGs and not really to anything else.

My basic complaint against the OP is that he wasn't very careful in composing his list.  A more carefully constructed list might have seen me being one of his defenders right from the start, because the point he seems to be wanting to make after composing the list - "we need to treat role playing games as such" - is one I very much agree with.  I think we still are muddling around a bit when it comes to good RPG and module writing techniques.  I think our efforts still resemble those of the early novelists who were uncertain of the worth and legitimacy of their chosen literary form, and who lacked clear models of how to be novelists because no one had ever done it before.  I think the best of our RPGs and stories for them resemble something like 'Moby Dick', with its constant dithering over whether it is a screen play, a natural history, or a travelogue, and ultimately being a rather thin (but memorable) novel.  I look at something like the DL series, and see the same blend of genius and confusion.  I read so many modules where I believe the author could make the adventure he's described interesting, and some DMs might be able to stumble into it by some combination of luck and insight, but where the writer has failed to actually describe how to do so.  We are still moving somewhat blindly as creators of this artform called 'the role-playing game'.


----------



## LostSoul (May 16, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> So...er...given this - and a few other examples I've seen over time that from what I can tell take a fun hobby and turn it into Serious Business - why are we paying any attention at all to what this 'Forge' (whatever it is) has to say?  Would we be better off just ignoring it completely and getting on with our games?
> 
> Lan-"I don't know what the "thematically-significant" decisions for my group are either"-efan




I think it's helpful - because it tells us only to look at the _people_ who are actually playing instead of some guidelines in the stars.  What is Illusionism?  That depends on the people playing.  (About as far away as "You're playing wrong" as you can get, in my opinion.)

I will bet that you know what the "thematically-significant" decisions that you make are.  I'd have to hear a report of how you actually play, but I don't think it would be that hard: what are the important decisions in your game?  Why do you play?  Those are what matters.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 16, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> You can't really have hard illusionism in a novel, because the words are fixed on the page and do not move in response to the reader's perception of those words.



The prevalence of coincidence in adventure fiction? The hero is wandering in the wilderness and just happens to find a lost city of the ancients or whatever. For example in X-Men #148, Cyclops and his girlfriend have been shipwrecked and just happen to find a R'lyeh style risen city. And Magneto's living there, how could he not be?


----------



## Wolf1066 (May 16, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> The prevalence of coincidence in adventure fiction? The hero is wandering in the wilderness and just happens to find a lost city of the ancients or whatever. For example in X-Men #148, Cyclops and his girlfriend have been shipwrecked and just happen to find a R'lyeh style risen city. And Magneto's living there, how could he not be?



The author doing it to the characters.  Just once, would be nice if one broke the fourth wall and said to the reader "I don't shaggin' believe this!  Did that seem like a very contrived coincidence to you, too?"


----------



## Hussar (May 16, 2010)

Wolf1066 said:


> The author doing it to the characters.  Just once, would be nice if one broke the fourth wall and said to the reader "I don't shaggin' believe this!  Did that seem like a very contrived coincidence to you, too?"




LOL

But, that's the point.  We don't.  We continue to read X-Men (or at least some of us do).  We KNOW when we pick up a mystery novel that by the end, whodunnit will be revealed.  

Yet, despite this, the Mystery Genre is alive and well.  We don't want to break the fourth wall.  In fact, most people are more than willing to accept incredible contrivances in the service of a good story.  We are thrilled when the pit is full of snakes, despite the illogic of it.  That sort of thing.


----------



## pemerton (May 17, 2010)

LostSoul said:


> When players make meaningful choices, there is no illusionism.  A game that does not rob players of those choices does not have illusionism.



It partly depends on what counts as "meaningful". In his earlier post, Celebrim suggests that a roads-to-Rome approach (ie a certain confrontation _will_ take place, although prior play may affect context, difficulty etc) is illusionistic. But Robin Laws expressly suggests roads-to-Rome in the HeroQuest 2e rulebook, and Ron Edwards, in his simulationist essay, identifies non-roads-to-Rome as hardcore purist for system (with reference to the DC Heroes rulebook).

To give a concrete example: if a player puts identifies a certain conflict as crucial to his/her PC (eg one of the players in my current game is playing a Drow worshipper of Correllon whose goal is to reunite the sundered Elven family) then it is not illusionistic of me to be keeping in mind that at some stage in the game - I imagine at Epic Tier - some sort of conflict involving the Feywild and/or Lolth will take place. By putting that goal into his PC description, the player has made the meaningful choice, and is relying on me as GM to use narrative logic rather than ingame causal logic to make it happen.



LostSoul said:


> Illusionsim is when players think they are making choices but in reality the outcome of those choices have been pre-determined by another player.



Right. So if the player of the Drow changes his goal, or chooses to squib at the crunch-point, then that has to be taken account of.



Celebrim said:


> Did you tell the players that you only put mind flayers in the dungeon because one of them suggested it?   If you didn't, then that's the heart and soul of illusionism.



I don't think this is quite right. After all, by putting in mind flayers rather than some other random thing what choice of the players was vitiated? Fifth Element hasn't told us enough about his game for that question to be answered.

In a Lewis Pulsifer-style hardcore dungeon crawl, where decisions about scouting, resource management etc are crucial, then changing room descriptions from whatevers to mind flayers vitiates player choices and renders the game illusionistic. But I'm pretty sure from his posting history that Fifth Element is not running that sort of game.

That's not to say that the decision was _not_ illusionistic (ie vitiating choice by creating a mere illusion of choice). We simply don't know enough about the details and context of Fifth Element's play to characterise it one way or the other.



Celebrim said:


> certain kinds of scenarios are hard to run without some degree of illusionism, and a small amount of illusionism can provide alot of structure to a sandbox without significantly harming player agency (provided its being provided in fistfulls elsewhere).





Celebrim said:


> If the DM reveals how the trick works, it not only loses its magic but in some cases reveals that the DM has broken an implicit social contract.  The gamist at the table is playing to win.  If its revealed that the DM gave him the win (or made the win harder than it should have been), that's a violation of social contract.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> If you would have no problem revealing to the player the trick and the player would not be disappointed to learn the trick, then its probably not illusionism.



These look to me like descriptions of the use of illusionism to turn a game that might otherwise be either purist-for-system (pure simulationist sandbox) or straightforward gamist (pure Pulsiferian megadungeon) into something with at least a hint of, if not a heavy does of, high concept flavour. I think that you (ie Celebrim) are right to think this is a pretty mainstream way of playing RPGs. For what it's worth, on this point you're also in agreement with Ron Edwards.



Celebrim said:


> The problem with illusionism is that its always a form of deception.  It doesn't work in the intended way if the players see through the deception.



Where is the deception in Fifth Element's example? Without more information about the context and details of play, I'm not seeing it. Equally, roads-to-Rome needn't involve deception. When my player of the Drow PC eventually ends up confronting Lolth on the Feywild (or however it plays out) there won't be any deception involved - he'll know that it's happening because he built it into the game from the moment his PC hit the table!



Hussar said:


> Running an adventure, the players get stuck at a point.  They have analysis paralysis, or just fixate on one thing, or whatever, but, in any case wind up spending far too much time navel gazing and the game is dragging.
> 
> We've likely all run into this from time to time.
> 
> ...



That's definitely scene-framing, but why is it illusionism? Where is the deceit? The vitiating of choices?



Fifth Element said:


> When is the adventure set, such that any future change may be called illusionism?



I think this depends on the sort of game you're running. In a Lewis Puslifer-style game, the adventure was set as soon as the dungeon level was designed and the PCs entered it, and chose whether or not to scout ahead with Detect Evil, Wizard Eye etc. After that point, any changes are illusionistic unless some ingame rationale is applied (eg the trolls got bored and swapped houses with the ogres - in this case, the PCs should be able to pick up rumours of the ogre/troll houseswap at the local monster real-estate rumour mill).



Mallus said:


> This seems to move the definition of illusionism beyond "DM actions which invalidate or remove meaningful player choice" and closer to "anything that fulfills a player's desires". Lucking into the vorpal sword Tom always wanted doesn't appear, to me, at least, to deny Tom a meaningful choice, ergo, I wouldn't call it illusionism.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I mean, where else should he be? He's a fictional character, after all, in a fictional world. He should be where I need him. Which is in front of the PC's, offering them a choice, a deal that sounds too good to be true. Because that's where the interesting and meaningful choice lies. It would certainly be bad form if, after introducing him, I conspired to force the players to work for Patron X. Luckily, I wouldn't do that.



Agreed. It's not illusionism to prefer narrative logic over ingame causal logic.



Celebrim said:


> Most players are happy with, "Alright! The DM gave me the sword I always wanted."
> 
> However, some players will focus on, "Alright. The DM _gave_ me the sword I always wanted."



And without more, this has nothing to do with illusionism. It's about gamism (of a sort) vs either high concept or narrativism (which of the latter two would depend on the relative power of game texts, GM, player etc in leading to the PC finding the sword).

I just recently place a magic item in my 4e game after a player sent me an email stating that the item is key to his build. I followed the encounter and reward guidelines in doing so (ie it is part of the treasure parcels appropriate to a 7th level party). That's not illusionism. There's no deceit, nor vitiation of player choice. Sure, it's not simulationist play, nor a certain sort of gamist play (mind you, the PCs still had to kill the hobgoblin to loot his boots!). But that's all orthogonal to the illusionism point.



Hussar said:


> But what is the significant difference?  Scale of course, but, besides that.  In both cases, you have changed the game purely out of a sense of aesthetics.  You have taken upon yourself to alter the parameters under which the players operate and have not informed them of this fact.



That's called playing the game in a non-simulationist, non-gamist way. But not all metagame motivations (in this case, narrative logic over ingame physical logic) are illusionist. The GM using his/her power to frame a scene is not illusionism, assuming that the players have willingly ceded that power and the scene-framing doesn't vitiate prior choices (and in Mallus's example it doesn't).

If you go down Celebrim's path, you won't be able to describe the difference between playing the worst 2nd ed AD&D railroad, and playing No Myth style (which Mallus has given examples of - the world is only designed by the GM as the PCs move through it, and is built up on the basis of narrative logic) or playing My Life With Master (which has a guaranteed end game built into the rules) - they're just different degrees of illusion. And that way madness lies!


----------



## Wolf1066 (May 17, 2010)

The setting/world and the character's place in it also dictates a lot about how much scope there is for different styles of play and GMing as well.

Some settings/teams lend more towards sandboxes or linear adventures or train trips or combinations of these than others do.  And each is appropriate in their place.

Consider the differences between a fantasy Middle Earth setting where the players can be random adventurers seeking fortune where they find it (something that has occurred very rarely in real life and usually outside the boundary of known "civilisation") compared with a more realistic Medieval setting where the players are constrained by laws and their place in society.  Or a Traveller campaign with thousands of different worlds with different law levels and technologies.  Or a Cyberpunk dystopia or lawless freebooters on the high seas.

All those settings vary the scope of the game and the concept behind the team also plays a part.  In a Traveller campaign, there would be a difference in the styles of adventure between the crew of an independent Free Trader and the crew of an Imperial Police Cruiser.

The former would have a lot more *player-driven *freedom in a sandbox setting, deciding where to go to ply their trade - constrained only by their jump engines, fuel and money - while the latter would be more likely to be responding to *scenarios dreamed up by the GM *- more linear train trips.  "OK, there's a Vargr Corsair operating in sector ZZ-nine-plural-Z-alpha.  Go and deal with it."

And then there's the scope for mixing - the players are buzzing around in the sandbox and elect to chase up a plot hook dangled by the GM, which sets them on a course, a train trip, that they may be able to abandon if they desire (or not: once you have that tiger by the tail...) but in order to resolve it, they have to run the gauntlet. 

All styles of play are possible in any setting, given the appropriate team, but some settings seem to lend themselves more easily to some styles than others do.

It's far easier to play sandbox style in freer, looser universes than in ones where there are rigid laws or social constraints in place.

A Traveller campaign in which I played, we were a Free Trader crew, we looked at what we could buy on any given world and what nearby systems had a market for it and travelled accordingly, having various adventures along the way.

Interestingly, The GM was quite upset that we didn't elect to go to a particular world (where he had an unpleasant surprise waiting) but instead elected to go to another world where we could buy something that would make us a bigger profit than whatever was on that other world.  One of the players, when it was revealed why the GM wanted us to go to that world, deemed him to be a "unimaginative GM" for not _forcing _us to go to that world by claiming we'd rolled a "misjump" - the _player _advocated blatant Illusionism!

Contrariwise, we played a number of AD&D games in which the adventures were a series of train trips - you went into the dungeon or cave system and you kept going until you'd killed all the monsters, gotten all the boodle and achieved whatever goals were in place.  Then you came out again all levelled up and hit the next dungeon/cave system - in which all the monsters were (surprise, surprise) at an appropriate level to be a challenge to the party...

The GM wrote modules in which we would meet certain challenges and if we didn't go where the "stranger with the map" suggested, there would be no adventure...

In the last nWoD game I played, the characters were employed as Paranormal Investigators - more "train trips" but at least there was no pretence at us having a choice.  The boss said "there's this house I want you guys to look at..." and we went.

And, this not being a "level based" game, the "monsters" (effing-great DEMONS, usually) were not pitched at the players' levels.  Some were downright "crap your pants and run away" adventures.

Frankly, I enjoyed all of them - even the train trips.  If there hadn't been appropriately interesting scenery on those trips, I'd've had cause to complain.


----------



## Hussar (May 18, 2010)

Permerton - I pretty much agree with everything you said.  Although telling Celebrim that he agrees with Ron Edwards should be good for a snort.  

Anyway - I'm not 100% sure I agree with the idea that scene framing isn't illusionism.  At least what Celebrim calls soft illusionism.  After all, you are taking away a fair degree of choice from the players, not because of the realities within the game world, but because it would make for a more interesting game (hopefully).  

Is that not invalidating player choice?  If the players don't get a choice in what the next scene is, when, normally or realistically they would, and that choice is picked, again, not for any in-game reasons but to further a particular meta-game goal, isn't that soft-illusionism?

Then again, and kinda talking to myself here, if we already have a perfectly valid term - scene framing - does it need to be included in the umbrella term of illusionism?  I really don't know.


----------



## Wolf1066 (May 18, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Is that not invalidating player choice?  If the players don't get a choice in what the next scene is, when, normally or realistically they would,



Is having a choice of scene normal or realistic? How often do we get, in real life, a choice of where we go next?

Is a game where you can wander anywhere you want around the place and do whatever you feel like "normal" or "realistic"?


----------



## Hussar (May 18, 2010)

Wolf1066 said:


> Is having a choice of scene normal or realistic? How often do we get, in real life, a choice of where we go next?
> 
> Is a game where you can wander anywhere you want around the place and do whatever you feel like "normal" or "realistic"?




I would say that it's rather normal in real life.  Barring prior scheduling, on Sunday, for example, I might stay home and clean, head to the park, take in a movie or whatever.  Even on a work day, while my schedule is pre-defined, it's still my choice to go to work.

Our adventurers, OTOH, do not have any pre-defined schedule typically.  Therefore, it's realistic that the PC's have fairly broad freedom to choose between scenes.  

However, it's not really all that realistic, when every choice leads to something fun and exciting.  Yet, in a game, as DM's, it's our job to make sure that every choice goes somewhere fun an exciting, and, if it's not fun and exciting, we should do something to make it fun an exciting - like blowing something up.  My personal favourite.


----------



## The Shaman (May 18, 2010)

Wolf1066 said:


> Is a game where you can wander anywhere you want around the place and do whatever you feel like "normal" or "realistic"?



A game can feel any way the designer and the players want it to feel.

I think a more appropriate question might be, is wandering where you will and doing as you please appropriate to the genre? Looking at a lot of games, the answer seems to be yes.

Bear in mind that not every game is about wandering over the landscape. Characters in _Flashing Blades_ may have 'day jobs' - soldier in a regiment, priest, royal bureaucrat, banker, fencing master - or they may be idle rich or criminals with no strict obligations or demands on their time. Adventuring may take place in the context of those careers, or it may take place during a character's downtime, at the discretion of the referee and the players.

The genre also plays a role in the relative freedom the adventurers enjoy.







Wolf1066 said:


> All those settings vary the scope of the game and the concept behind the team also plays a part.  In a Traveller campaign, there would be a difference in the styles of adventure between the crew of an independent Free Trader and the crew of an Imperial Police Cruiser.
> 
> The former would have a lot more *player-driven *freedom in a sandbox setting, deciding where to go to ply their trade - constrained only by their jump engines, fuel and money - while the latter would be more likely to be responding to *scenarios dreamed up by the GM *- more linear train trips.  "OK, there's a Vargr Corsair operating in sector ZZ-nine-plural-Z-alpha.  Go and deal with it."



The thing is, it's possible for the referee to create fairly open-ended scenarios which maximize player freedom - this was my thought-process in putting together a _Top Secret_ campaign a couple of years ago, to give the agents a mission as the initial premise, but giving them considerable latitude in what to do and how to do it and having multiple directions the whole thing could go.


----------



## Wolf1066 (May 18, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I would say that it's rather normal in real life.  Barring prior scheduling, on Sunday, for example, I might stay home and clean, head to the park, take in a movie or whatever.  Even on a work day, while my schedule is pre-defined, it's still my choice to go to work.



Yes, you could always choose to starve 

My point is that so many games revolve around some fantasy in which everyone is some kind of idle adventurer (except for unimportant people like innkeepers, publicans and the like who exist to serve the "adventuring class" and therefore must actually _work_ to earn a living) whose livelihood consists of wandering around the place killing monsters, finding treasure, rescuing damsels and being rewarded by kings (who, oddly enough, have no income whatsoever as the adventurers never seem to get taxed...)

Our "scenes" are generally not merely chosen for us, they can be predicted in advance a lot of the time.  The amount of time we spend being able to choose our own scenes is around 2/7th of the days of the week.  And a few hours between finishing work and going to sleep on the other days.

Living the life of the idle adventurer is neither normal nor, in most eras of human endeavour, realistic.


----------



## Wolf1066 (May 18, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> The thing is, it's possible for the referee to create fairly open-ended scenarios which maximize player freedom - this was my thought-process in putting together a _Top Secret_ campaign a couple of years ago, to give the agents a mission as the initial premise, but giving them considerable latitude in what to do and how to do it and having multiple directions the whole thing could go.



That is so, and it's what I strive for in my game - the premise being the "team" was brought together for the most prosaic of reasons - they were hired.

So they have jobs to do, but my aim is also to give them latitude in how they do that.  The job may be "go to XYZ Corp, pick up a parcel from Mr Frimm, deliver to Acme by sundown tomorrow or we don't get paid."
The *scenes they cannot avoid *are XYZ Corp for the pick up and Acme for the delivery.

Everything else in between and how they go about, it or get around any perceived obstacles, is entirely up to them.

Likewise, what plots they decide to get embroiled in outside their working hours is up to them.  But they are still nominally in a position where they have a commitment to do what they are required to earn their money.

Fortunately, they're in a job that should have more than a few opportunities for inventive resolutions and adventures - and the possibility of picking up a bit of extra loot along the way...


----------



## pemerton (May 18, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Permerton - I pretty much agree with everything you said.



Cool.



Hussar said:


> Anyway - I'm not 100% sure I agree with the idea that scene framing isn't illusionism.  At least what Celebrim calls soft illusionism.  After all, you are taking away a fair degree of choice from the players, not because of the realities within the game world, but because it would make for a more interesting game (hopefully).
> 
> <snip>
> 
> If the players don't get a choice in what the next scene is, when, normally or realistically they would, and that choice is picked, again, not for any in-game reasons but to further a particular meta-game goal, isn't that soft-illusionism?



Well, the question is, what would the players be choosing from otherwise? And what counts as meaningful?

I know that Forge theory isn't all that popular on these boards, but to be honest I think that it helps unpack some of these issues and the debates that have a tendency to recur here. In this case, I think the discussion of illusionism is being distorted in the way that Mallus described - that is, too many assumptions are being drawn from classic AD&D play compared to other approaches to play.

As far as I can tell, from a combination of experience plus reading what others have to say, AD&D has two classic approaches to play: either purist-for-system simulationism (here we all are, a fighter, a wizard, a cleric and a thief in a fantasy world - I wonder what our adventures will be?) or a pretty austere form of gamism (here's this fantasy world generated in accordance with all these random tables, that looks almost like purist-for-system simulationism, except that when we take a second look at it we see that the real point of it is for the GM to run the players through the challenges that the game setup poses). In either approach, from the subjective perspective of the players there's no scene framing other than the initial "You all meet in a tavern" because from that point on the whole game unfolds according to the logic of those random tables, plus the GM's decisions about how to apply them and interpret their results. Playing this way, making decisions about "quantum pubs" or "quantum NPCs" would count as dubious metagaming, and is a good candidate for either illusionism (if the players believed that their choices about where to move in the world mattered, and in fact they didn't) or railroading (once the players pierce the veil of illusion).

The highwater mark for encouraging this sort of illusionsim/railroading is AD&D 2nd edition, which keeps all the mechanical trappings that supported purist-for-system simulationism and austere gamism, but wants to deliver a Dragonlance/Driz'zt experience in play. The "solution" to the incoherence between mechanics and goals is to have the GM tweak mechanical outcomes to produce goals. This is why I agree with the Forge-ites that AD&D 2nd edition is an incoherent ruleset. But I have to admit that, for a lot of players, it seems to deliver something they want (or at least are willing to accept).

Because I dislike this sort of illusionist/railroaded play so much it's a bit hard for me to reconstruct the preferences of those who like it, but my best guess is that they want play to produce a story, but also want mechanics that feel like the physics of the gameworld - including, for example, an absence of overt sceneframing, because when mechanics are the physics of the gameworld then the scene only changes because individual PCs and NPCs make game-mechanically legal decisions to move from A to B and to perform actions X and Y. It seems that the players who want this combination of story and physics are therefore prepared to put up with the GM exercising either covert or overt power in order to make the simulationist mechanics produce satisfying narrative outcomes. (This is even the explanation for the use of illusionism that Celebrim has given upthread.)

But once other approaches to play are considered, things change. For example, if - from the very get-go - it's understood that certain decisions will be made by the GM, then the GM making those decisions is not illusionism (because there's no deceit). But if those decisions are not relevant to the meaningful choices the players have to make in the course of play, then the GM making them is not railroading either. In the same way that no one regards it as railroading for a typical D&D campaign to begin with "So, there you all are in a tavern waiting for a patron to show up" - this isn't railroading, it's just the GM kicking things off - so if it's agreed that the GM will do this sort of thing _from time to time_ then it's not railroading. It's just the GM doing his/her job.

A practical example from my own 4e campaign: the players made a mistake and blundered into a TPK ambush by undead spirits that had been summoned, as guardians and wardens, by a goblin shaman. After the last PC went down - which in 4e is not necessarily dead, but rolling death saves - I found out who wanted to start a new PC and who wanted to keep playing his existing PC. All but the player of the half-elf warlock wanted to keep going - the half-elf's player wanted to bring in a drow sorcerer instead. The next session then starts with the PCs (minus the half-elf, plus the drow) in the goblin dungeons. A bacsktory for the drow is worked out between me and the player explaining how he got there. For the others, it's simply assumed by them (I'm not even sure it actually came out in the course of play) that the goblins took them prisoner once the undead had knocked them out. And the prisoners can smell the smell of roasting half-elf as the goblins prepare their evening meal.

This is not consistent with traditional AD&D play, because the transition from TPK to prisoners wasn't mediated by the rules, except in the very loose sense that the 4e rules didn't mandate that the PCs _had_ to be dead simply because they lost the combat. (For me, this is an attractive feature of 4e - it removes the need for the GM to fudge in the interests of the story.) Nor had I made any notes about the goblins intending to take prisoners, although there was already a dungeon on the map of their lair. There was no railroading or illusionism. The whole thing was worked out by negotiating with the players, and driven by obviously metagame considerations.

Now, from what I've said, you can't work out whether the game is gamist (but not the sort of austere gamism that AD&D favours, but that's not the only viable form of gamist play) or narrativist (ie story and theme are to be worked out in the course of play). I'm not 100% sure myself - although Forge theory dictates that each functional game has only one ultimate goal of play, I'm still not fully persuaded of that. Or maybe my game is mildly dysfunctional but we cope. In any event, I'm pretty certain that a game can be played which gives the GM a certain sort of authority over sceneframing but which nevertheless involves neither illusionism nor railroading. All it requires is letting go of an attachment to hardcore simulationist mechanics - some things can happen without needing to conceive of them as mediated via the action resolution rules.



Hussar said:


> Then again, and kinda talking to myself here, if we already have a perfectly valid term - scene framing - does it need to be included in the umbrella term of illusionism?  I really don't know.



Here are some relevant threads from the Forge and related sites that make me think it's important to keep the two distinct:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1448.0 on simulationist reality and narrativist reality - the latter does not assume that there's a world out there to explore, but rather that there's a story to be had if we all play together.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1361.0 on transitioning from scene to scene - the post by Paul Czege about half way down the first page is especially clear, I think, on the contrast between "continuous play" of the classic AD&D sort and more overt scene framing play.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=29332.0 on the notion of railroading, and illusionism - it's not illusionism if the players know, it's not railroading if the players are OK with it (Edwards calls that "participationism"), and it's not even force if the GM doesn't transition the scene without the players' consent (which seems to be Edwards's preferred approach).

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20791.0 distinguishing narrational authority (ie who gets to narrate the colour of a PC's action eg "My sword digs deep into the dragon's scales), plot authority (ie who gets to decide when the reveals happen eg "Now his mask finally comes off, and you realise that he's your father!"), situational authority (ie who gets to frame scenes) and content authority (ie who gets to decide whether or not the masked man is the PC's father). And pointing out that the last two are orthogonal to illusionism/railroading.

http://story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=11244 which debates whether or not D&D has scene framing at all.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=227.0 on some scene framing techniques, and ways in which a GM can be more or less flexible and follow player cues in deciding to cut the scene.​
In my own game I use a mixture of "continuous play" and explicit scene-framing, but am trying to move from more of the former to more of the latter, to get rid of the boring bits. I've used skill challenge mechanics to help with this a bit (doing travel and searching as a skill challenge, so there's a definite beginning, middle and end) and also some pretty overt GM narration ("You go down the corridor and find nothing interesting").


----------



## Fifth Element (May 18, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Anyway - I'm not 100% sure I agree with the idea that scene framing isn't illusionism.  At least what Celebrim calls soft illusionism.  After all, you are taking away a fair degree of choice from the players, not because of the realities within the game world, but because it would make for a more interesting game (hopefully).



This illustrates my problem with soft illusionism being called illusionism at all - it lumps it together with the hard illusionism, which is very, very different.

Scene framing is part of D&D being a game. It really doesn't take anything away from players or characters.


----------



## Celebrim (May 18, 2010)

pemerton said:


> Cool.
> 
> Well, the question is, what would the players be choosing from otherwise? And what counts as meaningful?




If those are the questions, then you don't address them.  I'm busy working/geting ready for my next session, but I've been following this with some interest despite my lack of comments.



> I know that Forge theory isn't all that popular on these boards, but to be honest I think that it helps unpack some of these issues and the debates that have a tendency to recur here.




I like Forge theory because its a serious attempt to address the complexities of what makes an RPG work.  I dislike Forge theory because of particular claims that it makes that don't for me stand up in the light of my experience.



> [In this case, I think the discussion of illusionism is being distorted in the way that Mallus described - that is, too many assumptions are being drawn from classic AD&D play compared to other approaches to play.




As opposed to what, for example? How I played 'Star Wars'?  Chill?  Call of Cthullu?  



> As far as I can tell, from a combination of experience plus reading what others have to say, AD&D has two classic approaches to play: either purist-for-system simulationism (here we all are, a fighter, a wizard, a cleric and a thief in a fantasy world - I wonder what our adventures will be?) or a pretty austere form of gamism (here's this fantasy world generated in accordance with all these random tables, that looks almost like purist-for-system simulationism, except that when we take a second look at it we see that the real point of it is for the GM to run the players through the challenges that the game setup poses).




You've immediately jumped into one of my least favorite assumptions of Forge theory - the notion of concrete mutually exclusive play styles.  I seriously doubt anything so easily described represents actual AD&D play, and I certainly protest that a game could have both approaches at the same time.  You are hunting for a 'real point' to the play as if the game has a single 'real point' rigorously adhered to, and that prevents you from seeing that it might have neither a point at all or, to the extent it has a point, it might well have many equally valid points sharing time and energy in the game.



> In either approach, from the subjective perspective of the players there's no scene framing other than the initial "You all meet in a tavern" because from that point on the whole game unfolds according to the logic of those random tables, plus the GM's decisions about how to apply them and interpret their results.




I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I'm tempted to just say 'bollocks'.  I don't think its possible to say what sort of scene framing has likely occurred in either of the cases you describe, nor do I think the scene framing tells us much about the game.  For example, if my game begins with the scene framing, "You are all intimate associates of one of the princes of a kingdom, and the game begins at a private party being conducted in his chambers", it doesn't necessarily follow that I'm not going to flesh out the world randomly or that I'm not going to treat the castle like a dungeon where the players overcome challenges.   The scene "You all meet in a tavern", is itself a sort of scene framing that tells us something about the player's characters.  In particular, it's worth noting that 'Dragonlance', which you've sited as being a step away from this style of play begins with the scene framing, "You all meet in a tavern."  



> The highwater mark for encouraging this sort of illusionsim/railroading is AD&D 2nd edition, which keeps all the mechanical trappings that supported purist-for-system simulationism and austere gamism, but wants to deliver a Dragonlance/Driz'zt experience in play.




The real strange thing about this is that the Dragonlance/Driz'zt experience (Driz'zt especially) was itself created from games run according to something like what you call 'purist-for-system' simulation and austere gamism.  The original Icewind Dale Trilogy reads like a recount of a pretty standard AD&D campaign in novelized form.  The incoherence in DL/FR results first from wanting to communicate the results of a play experience (the personal campaign of the designers) rather than the tools that built that experience in the first place, and secondly from not having preexisting tools for communicating end results rather than starting points.  It's worth noting, that this desire to communicate the wonderful joys of the designers end results, was a desire on the part of the designers that wasn't necessarily in line with the desires of their audience.

There are plenty of people who played DL who did have the 'Dragonlance' experience themselves, but they did so by abandoning the attempt to have the exact same experience in play as the designers, and instead employed the techniques that they had learned from playing AD&D.  The result was recognizably DL, but DL in an alternate universe where the war was primarily naval in nature, or where different characters died and had different roles in the ultimate outcome of the story.  What you call the 'purist-for-system' simulation can result in an epic narrative, but what it can't do is transmit the same narrative between groups (because it depends heavily on things happening randomly and players making free choices).



> The "solution" to the incoherence between mechanics and goals is to have the GM tweak mechanical outcomes to produce goals. This is why I agree with the Forge-ites that AD&D 2nd edition is an incoherent ruleset.




Maybe, depending on what you mean by a 'ruleset', but not for the reason you cite.  And note, the 'solution' you cite still doesn't produce the 'Dragonlance' experience.  It produces the experience of observing someone else's 'Dragonlance' experience.  The incoherence in 2nd edition is a failure to understand that you can't directly transmit the 1st person experience of gaming out a story.  It results in modules and even settings that are novelized and hense, noninteractive.



> But I have to admit that, for a lot of players, it seems to deliver something they want (or at least are willing to accept).




Really?  No, I don't think so.  I think that alot of players want the experience of an epic story, but they want to experience their own epic story and much of the reason early to mid 2nd edition TSR produced all this product that didn't sell was that they were trying to transmit their own epic stories rather than providing the tools to produce epic stories on your own.   Oddly, I think DL did this latter job much better than the 2nd edition attempts that followed it, because it still for the most part used the earlier adventure framework (dungeons, encounter areas, hooks, narrow-broad-narrow) rather than the read along style that followed it.  It also learned better from its mistakes than latter attempts.



> It seems that the players who want this combination of story and physics are therefore prepared to put up with the GM exercising either covert or overt power in order to make the simulationist mechanics produce satisfying narrative outcomes. (This is even the explanation for the use of illusionism that Celebrim has given upthread.)




You seem to have completely missed what my stake is here.  Why am I trying to define 'soft illusionism'?  What do I get out of having this term in the debate?  One of the things I've observed about players who have been burned by 'railroading', is that they become very upset at the slighest hint of DM's exerting authority over the story because they fear that it will put them on a slippery slope which ends in the same sort of play experience that they were burned by before where the were robbed of all meaningful agency.  These players tend to define games by a binary 'illusionist' or 'not illusionist' paradigm, where 'illusionist' means 'bad'.  

But as I observe games, what I find is that there isn't a nice neat binary either-or thing going on.   Like most everything, I believe there exists a continium between the two end points.   I'm bringing up these 'soft illusionism' examples where the DM shapes the game world for metagame reasons to achieve some goal, but where most observers would say that player choice is not 'meaningfully' being reduced, in an effort to show that first, no game is or even can be completely free of illusionism, and secondly that illusionism doesn't inevitably lead to 'a railroad' because there are always implicit assumptions about the sort of choice/outcomes that will be available in play and the sorts that will not be available.



> For example, if - from the very get-go - it's understood that certain decisions will be made by the GM, then the GM making those decisions is not illusionism (because there's no deceit).




Only if those things are openly acknowledged.  One way to get around illusionism entirely is for games to openly acknowledge their conciets.  The illusion is still there, but because the veil is openly and always peirced, there is no possibility of 'illusionism'.  The illusion is maintained as an open conciet, rather than an unacknowledged one.   However, this style of play is IME somewhat outside of the mainstream except in a few narrow cases.  One example from the thread being the player who requested a certain object and the DM responded by placing the object in the player's path.  That isn't illusionism, because there is an open transaction between the player and the DM.  The player has peirced the illusion and tacitly both sides have acknowledged it.  Some game system openly encourage these above board transactions.  Some even create game resources for managing these transactions and even make that the mechanical focus of play.



> In the same way that no one regards it as railroading for a typical D&D campaign to begin with "So, there you all are in a tavern waiting for a patron to show up" - this isn't railroading, it's just the GM kicking things off - so if it's agreed that the GM will do this sort of thing _from time to time_ then it's not railroading. It's just the GM doing his/her job.




I don't know that I would go so far as to say 'no one' regards it as railroading.  Probably someone out there is going, "I protest.  My character would never hang around in a tavern.", and a negotiation would ensue as to what the realistic place for the player to begin play would actually be according to the player's desires and the approved background of the character.  Part of the problem I had with your early reference to 'You all start in a tavern' is that in fact, for 'purist-for-system simulationism' there is this prior to game negotiation over the simulations starting state where the DM and the players negotiate over how the characters will fit into the world at the moment that the game clock begins running and the whole elaborate mechanical clockwork begins to turn.   Most true 'purist-for-system simulationist' DMs probably actually do feel that 'You all start in a tavern' is the first step to railroading the players.  What if the players would rather start in a rowboat?  What about on a pilgrimage?  The DM is expected to kick off the game in a game state that represents what realistically would have happened before, where 'before' is something that the player has some input over and 'after' is also something that the player has some input over.



> This is not consistent with traditional AD&D play, because the transition from TPK to prisoners wasn't mediated by the rules, except in the very loose sense that the 4e rules didn't mandate that the PCs _had_ to be dead simply because they lost the combat. (For me, this is an attractive feature of 4e - it removes the need for the GM to fudge in the interests of the story.)




Rather, it gives the GM explicit permission to fudge in the interests of story in this particular case.  In 1e, the GM has explicit permission to fudge anything he wanted, but strongly encouraged a 'tough love' approach that encouraged the 1e notion of 'skillful play'.  In your game, it's clear that you are more interested in maintaining story continuity than in the 'skillful play' that the designers of 1e felt was a crucial part of your game.



> Nor had I made any notes about the goblins intending to take prisoners, although there was already a dungeon on the map of their lair. There was no railroading or illusionism. The whole thing was worked out by negotiating with the players, and driven by obviously metagame considerations.




Agreed.  However, this says nothing against any of my prior arguments because, since you've moved away from 'the heart and soul of illusionism', you can't actually use this as a counter example to my definition of illusionism whether 'hard' or 'soft'.  You are, for the purposes of this discussion, off on a tangent.  I have no problem admitting that an open agreement like this isn't illusionism, while still maintaining my prior arguments unchanged.



> I'm not 100% sure myself - although Forge theory dictates that each functional game has only one ultimate goal of play, I'm still not fully persuaded of that.




I'm strongly persuaded that that is where Forge theory goes most wrong.  Not only IMO does a functional game never have one ultimate goal of play (unless there is only one player, and then only 'perhaps), but since under Forge theory any game which lacks one ultimate goal of play is perforce 'incoherent', it's only a short jump from the assertion that there must be one goal of play to 'Everyone else is having badwrongfun', 'Every prior designer produced incoherent games', and 'You are all doing it wrong'.  



> Or maybe my game is mildly dysfunctional but we cope.




No, your game is functional because you balance the different desires your players have in a way that your players are comfortable with.



> In any event, I'm pretty certain that a game can be played which gives the GM a certain sort of authority over sceneframing but which nevertheless involves neither illusionism nor railroading.




I never asserted otherwise.  



> All it requires is letting go of an attachment to hardcore simulationist mechanics - some things can happen without needing to conceive of them as mediated via the action resolution rules.




Whoa there.  You haven't established that.  You've only established that there is _an alternative_ to illusionism.  You haven't established that this is the only alternative, nor have you established that you hardcore simulationism is incompatible with all forms of illusionism, nor have you established that a game can't be both 'hardcore simulationist' at one point in the game and 'illusionist' at another point.  See my prior example of 'narrow-broad-narrow', where the default assumption is "During the hook and the conclusion, I will accept a certain amount of illusionism provided that I'm allowed to make the journey between the two points in a hard core simulation where I have a gaurantee of full agency and fair arbitration with the GM in a referee stance."


----------



## The Shaman (May 18, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Scene framing is part of D&D being a game.



Man-whut?


----------



## Fifth Element (May 18, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> Man-whut?



Sigh. Most people play D&D as a game, and know that it's a game, and as such accept a certain degree of what might be called gamism or soft illusionism.

Don't read the comment as arguing that all D&D must include scene framing, or must involve illusionism, or anything like that.


----------



## Celebrim (May 18, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Scene framing is part of D&D being a game. It really doesn't take anything away from players or characters.




I guess now its my turn to jump on this.

I agree with the statement with one reservation, but think the following statement works well for the same reasons:

"Illusionism is part of D&D being a game.  It really doesn't [necessarily] take anything away from the players or characters."

When you jump into a forge discussion of scene framing, very quickly you are going to get into a discussion of what is meant by 'scene framing', and pretty soon someone is going to assert that all RPGs always have some sort of scene framing because no (PnP) RPG is truly continious.  And since none are really continuous, they all have scene framing to represent the disparate passages of time between important events.  The most frequent obvious one in D&D is, "Ok, it's the next day.", which is scene framing, but even, "Ok, you go 80' further down the corridor, when..." is also scene framing.

When this is asserted, you think get into a discussion of what separates the different types and degrees of scene framing assumed by the rules of different games because usually the original poster wanted to talk about explicit scene framing, and so you end up in a discussion of 'soft scene framing' or 'hard scene framing' or 'heavy scene framing'.

I'm doing the same thing with illusionism.  

My one reservation is that I think in both cases, the technique can become 'hard' enough that in fact it does take agency from the players.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 18, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> My one reservation is that I think in both cases, the technique can become 'hard' enough that in fact it does take agency from the players.



My argument is that if it's something that really takes agency away from the players, it should not be called the same thing as something that does not, regardless of qualifying adjectives. I say that because of the importance that such a thing has in playing RPGs.

The difference between the two, as I see it, is that the term "illusionism" (as most people use it) is by default the "hard" version, while I think the opposite is true of "scene framing". I'm not sure what would be an example of "hard" scene framing, but I daresay it would be quite different from what most people mean by the term.


----------



## Celebrim (May 18, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> I'm not sure what would be an example of "hard" scene framing, but I daresay it would be quite different from what most people mean by the term.




An example of 'hard' scene framing is the transition being "A3 - Assault on the Aerie of the Slave Lords" and "A4 - In the Dungeons of the Slave Lords" where the DM essentially says, "Ok, you've been captured.  You are now in the dungeons of the Slave Lords and you need to escape. Go!"  This technique is rare in AD&D, but is actively encouraged by the sort of game systems that encourage what Forge speakers usually mean by "Scene Framing".  The sort of scene framing that goes on in AD&D is usually 'soft' scene framing that Forge speakers don't necessarily recognize as 'Scene Framing' because they are used to talking about the 'hard' kind.


----------



## Wolf1066 (May 18, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> I don't know that I would go so far as to say 'no one' regards it as railroading.  Probably someone out there is going, "I protest.  My character would never hang around in a tavern.", and a negotiation would ensue as to what the realistic place for the player to begin play would actually be according to the player's desires and the approved background of the character.  Part of the problem I had with your early reference to 'You all start in a tavern' is that in fact, for 'purist-for-system simulationism' there is this prior to game negotiation over the simulations starting state where the DM and the players negotiate over how the characters will fit into the world at the moment that the game clock begins running and the whole elaborate mechanical clockwork begins to turn.   Most true 'purist-for-system simulationist' DMs probably actually do feel that 'You all start in a tavern' is the first step to railroading the players.  What if the players would rather start in a rowboat?  What about on a pilgrimage?  The DM is expected to kick off the game in a game state that represents what realistically would have happened before, where 'before' is something that the player has some input over and 'after' is also something that the player has some input over.



You pre-empted me.  I was musing along just those lines.

Also, within the character creation process itself and creating of the backstory and the base premises upon which the adventure rests.

Your player wants to have a backstory which effectively means (s)he's extremely well connected and has lots of reserves upon which to call.  The GM decides that this would detract from the overall gaming of the party (other player characters) at large and says no.  Player cries "foul".

In my own particular campaign, I've shamelessly "scene framed" hard.  I've created the situation in such a that all the players are on a level playing field - equally on the back foot - to ensure they all have to role play (and choose paths) to find their footing.

Where are they?  How did they get there? How much do they know of the place? What resources do they have? How did they all meet? Did they know one another prior to the adventure? Why did/would they choose to work together?  

I shamelessly took all of this away from the players' decisions in the interests of building a team in an interesting situation so they, the players, could role play.

I've had my fill of players that want their characters to be the favoured offspring of a major gang leader (one previous player actually used the term "Nomad Princess" to describe her character and expected that she'd have a *large *nomad pack with medics, fighters etc at her beck and call because daddy's the wise and respected leader.  Say what?)

You want resources in this game?  Find 'em.  Make the contacts.  Role play getting them.

So, the characters' backstories all account for them having their particular skills, attributes, talents and equipment.

The "scene framing" has them all fairly recently leaving their previous employment.  They are all strangers to one another with one contact in common... an employment broker.  That broker receives a "laundry list" from a client in Australia and assembles the team based on their skills etc.

They then fly to Australia to meet their new boss.  They have no local knowledge of the town they arrive in.  They have no contacts there, no networks, no bolt holes, no family/gang/organisation.  They have each other because they were thrown together and they are expected to work - whether or not they get along (the *players *can decide if their character likes the others or not).

The lack of player choice is rampant in the initial set up - the players know it and I've explained why.  They all seem quite happy with the fact that there's a ready-made reason why their characters are as "lost" in the environment as they, the players, are and that they can role play finding things out without stepping out of character - don't know how to get to the Qwik-E Mart on Lustbader St or what they sell out the back door?  That's fine, you're new in town.  They are happy with the fact that no one is at an advantage over the others, and they are enjoying the added challenge of finding their feet and choosing a network from amongst the NPCs I've provided (quite a large number already and I keep coming up with new ones).

They did not meet in a tavern and "decide" for _some inexplicable reason _that they are going to trust one another and go adventuring.  They were hired and *have to *work together - "trust" is something they are going to have to role play at building.

Celebrim's point is bang on the mark.  "Player choice" is often lost long before the game commences.

I'd argue that it's not always a Bad Thing.  Not if the aim is to curb powergamers or munchkins and ensure the players are on an equal footing and/or to ensure there's better opportunity to role play in the session.

The game is for them all to enjoy - it's not the _Joe Bloggs_ _Show _with the other players there to provide sidekicks and comic relief for one munchkin.

I've made the set up in such a way as to give all the players the same opportunity for even more choices in game.  Want to be affiliated with a major gang?  Sure, take your pick - there's around 30 to choose from - make your moves and get connected.  Want to have the CEO of a major corp in your pocket?  You work out how to do it and it's yours.  Want a couple of close friends you can rely on to watch your back?  There's plenty to choose from.

Want some adventures/extra money outside work?  There's plenty of that going, too, if you're up for it.  Rather sit at the pub?  Irish Tavern, Dinkum Aussie Boozer or ersatz Biergarten?

I've spent ages coming up with NPCs with their own stories and goals and personalities, news threads, ongoing mysteries and plots - plenty of scope for the players to bury themselves as deep as they like and take whatever side roads take their fancy.

And I've built in scope for the players to choose how they execute the jobs their employer gives them - they are "expected to have a degree of autonomy and work things out for themselves", so while the broad strokes might be "pick up parcel from here and deliver to there" the actual picture is up to them.


----------



## Celebrim (May 19, 2010)

Wolf1066 said:


> Your player wants to have a backstory which effectively means (s)he's extremely well connected and has lots of reserves upon which to call.  The GM decides that this would detract from the overall gaming of the party (other player characters) at large and says no.  Player cries "foul".




I handle all these requests via an advantage/disadvantage system.



> I've had my fill of players that want their characters to be the favoured offspring of a major gang leader (one previous player actually used the term "Nomad Princess" to describe her character and expected that she'd have a *large *nomad pack with medics, fighters etc at her beck and call because daddy's the wise and respected leader.  Say what?)




I generally don't allow 'leadership' type feats/advantages because they tend to spotlight the player that has them too much at the expense of the other players.  However, I'm perfectly fine with a character with a concept that makes them 'someone important' provided that they buy whatever tangible benefits that they want as advantages.  So, if you want to be a 'Nomad Princess' then you can buy advantages like Wealthy, Patron, Noble Rank, and so forth.  Then you just got to figure out what disadvantages you want to start with as well.  Generally speaking, this discourages too much attempt at writing backgrounds to gain advantages that could otherwise be acquired in play without restricting the player from an unusual background if they really want it.  If someone really wants it, they could be the King's son, but they'd pay for this right to start with unusual authority by trading something away of equal or greater value.


----------



## Wolf1066 (May 19, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> So, if you want to be a 'Nomad Princess' then you can buy advantages like Wealthy, Patron, Noble Rank, and so forth.  Then you just got to figure out what disadvantages you want to start with as well.



I do take your point.  Depending on the gaming system, that could wind up accrueing lots of disadvantages and/or costing lots of character points.

Even under Ocelot's modified Cyberpunk Character Generation rules, and taking a lot of really major disadvantages, in order to build up the character to the level of "Nomad Princess" for a decent-sized gang with reasonable resources, you'd have no Skill Points left for actual skills.

The "Brotherhood" advantage exists but gangs are "costly" in terms of SP.



Celebrim said:


> If someone really wants it, they could be the King's son, but they'd pay for this right to start with unusual authority by trading something away of equal or greater value.



Ugly, uncouth, lame, can't actually _do _anything and smells terrible - but he's the King's son...  

Actually, that sounds like a pretty interesting (if potentially short-lived) character...


----------



## Fifth Element (May 19, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> This technique is rare in AD&D, but is actively encouraged by the sort of game systems that encourage what Forge speakers usually mean by "Scene Framing".  The sort of scene framing that goes on in AD&D is usually 'soft' scene framing that Forge speakers don't necessarily recognize as 'Scene Framing' because they are used to talking about the 'hard' kind.



Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think most people use the term to mean the hard version. The 'Forge speakers' not being in the majority. I could be wrong though.


----------



## Hussar (May 19, 2010)

I've heard the term "Agressive Scene Framing" thrown around on occassion.  I think that might describe things better than "hard".  Celebrim is right in that pretty much any "encounter" (by pretty much any definition of the term) is a framed scene.  You have an initial set up, and the scenario begins.  

Agressive Scene Framing allows the GM to simply dictate most or all of the initial elements of the scenario.  Imagine a dungeon crawl, but, instead of searching doors and corridors for traps, every bit between each encounter was simply narrated by the GM.  That would be agressive scene framing. 

It can work in certain kinds of campaigns.  The one I'm doing now relies pretty heavily on agressive scene framing - the PC's are members of a very powerful organization that sends them on very specific missions - their first one was to find and observe an individual in a city and then ensure that that individual safely traveled from that city to another city.

Now, the individual in question turned out to be a terrorist, murdered dozens of people and the PC's wound up fighting the authorities in order to prevent her capture.  But, the initial set up was pretty much entirely framed by me.  The equipment they had, and most of the details were mine as the GM.

The advantage of this is speed.  The scenario rockets on roller skates.  There's no down time at all.  The disadvantage is that it strips away a LOT of player power.  Certainly not something I'm going to do every scenario in this campaign.  In fact, looking at it, this will likely be the only time.  But, it can work.


----------



## pemerton (May 19, 2010)

@Celebrim

I don't think there's any need for a line-by-line response to your post because I think I agree with most of what you have to say. My "you all start in a tavern" was intended as a generic placeholder for a fairly typical fantasy RPG - it's my general experience that the GM rather than the players has a bigger say in the starting situation (ie most mainstream fantasy RPGs don't use a Sorcerer-like "kicker" mechanic), but I agree that this is obviously up for negotiation with the players.

I agree with your reading of 2nd ed play as presenting _someone else's_ game experience as material for play - and I think that is pretty consistent with the Forge reading. I still think that a lot of people like it, though. For example, Planescape seems to receive a lot of love around here, although for my money it's a classic example of presenting the author's epic story as material for someone else's play. (I started the Glorantha-fication thread because I think the 4e authors have worked this out and started to present D&D mythology in a way that makes it more useful for play.)

I'm still not entirely sold on the utility of the notion of "soft illusionism" - I think other notions like "situational authority", "scene framing" etc can be more profitably used to analyse what's going on here. But I'm not wanting to be excessively precious about terminology.

I don't fully agree with your comments about railroad burnout - I think I'm closer to the Forge line than you are, in seeing it as a product of the inability of the 2nd ed AD&D rules, as written and presented in the rulebooks, to deliver an epic story, and the resultant encouragement to GMs to use a lot of force, both overt (railroading) and covert (illusionism). This encouragement is found both in rulebooks (dont' let the rules spoil the game, WW's golden rule) and also arises out of play - the GM is sitting at the table with a TPK about to derail the game and decides to ignore or reroll a dice roll in order to keep the story that everyone is enjoying on track.

I also think there are peculiar elements of AD&D (both editions), many of which also made the transition to 3E, that encourage the GM to exercise force - alignment is the main one, but paladin's codes of honour, racial preference charts, the general lack of a discussion in the rules about how to build a coherent party (not mechanically coherent, but motivationally coherent). Also notions like the use of ingame techniques (rust monsters, ear seekers etc) to resolve issues that are fundamentally social contract problems (Monty Haul, excessive and annoying caution by players, etc). (To an extent, these couple of paragraphs are consistent, I think, with Ron Edwards notorious brain damage comments, although I'm focussing more on AD&D, especially 2nd ed, than on WoD/Storyteller.)

In my view, all of the above lead to the loss of trust - both with individual GMs, and with the game system as a whole - that leads to the hostility to any sort of GM activity or storybuilding that you have described in your post. Obviously, in the absence of anything like a scientific survey, the view that I have described here is influenced by my own experiences as a player and GM, as well as my best attempt to make sense of experiences that others have reported. It's natural that others with different experiences might see the causal mechanisms as being different - and, in particular, might lay less blame at the foot of particular AD&D mechanics. But if I've understood you rightly (and I'm trying here to take account not only of your post, but eg of your comments in another recent thread on the lack of memorable 2nd ed modules) we agree about the problems with trust of GMs, even if we don't agree entirely on its cause.

A final paragraph in our duelling walls of text! - it's polite, generous even, of you to suggest that my game is coherent, for which I thank you - I try to make it so, although I suspect in Forge terms there is an element of incoherence with respect to creative agenda, which is compensated for by a lot of mutual enjoyment of particular techniques (especially 4e combat and the colour and theme that accompany it - my group has definitely not encountered any grind issues) and socialisation at the game table. I think there is a tendency at the Forge to disregard the degree to which a small amount of incoherence, and hence technical dysfunctionality, need not be any sort of ultimate problem in a social passtime among friends. I differ from you, though, in finding the analysis in terms of ideal types helpful even if they're rarely realised in the actual world (I'm also a fan of Weber's historical sociology).

And a post-final paragraph - I don't entirely accept the description of my TPK-avoidance as "fudging". I see it as applying the rules of the game after talking to my players about how they wanted things to go. It's just that (at least as I read them) the rules of the game at that point give a lot of latitude, because they suspend the standard action resolution mechanics. But this is probably another case of "what's in a name" - but if it's fudging, it's not illusionist fudging because there is no illusion.


----------



## pemerton (May 19, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think most people use the term to mean the hard version. The 'Forge speakers' not being in the majority. I could be wrong though.



I don't know about general useage, but I agree with what Celebrim has said about scene framing and the Forge discussions about (examples of which are found in the links I posted upthread).

At the Forge they call hard scene framing "participationism" when the players consent, and "railroading" when they don't. So whether the A3>A4 transition is railroading or not would depend on player consent. I think that, in practice, this is likely to come back to trust in the GM. In my experience, players used to playing maintream fantasy RPGs (D&D, Rolemaster, Runequest, HERO etc) are wary of (hard) scene framing because they suspect that the GM is trying to rob them of the opportunity to do stuff that would increase their chances of success. One upshot of allowing these concerns to push towards "continuos play"/soft scene framing can be the sort of listening-at-doors, 10' pole play that Gygax characterises as skillful play but that many players and GMs (myself included, I must admit) prefer to avoid. This is the sort of play I was trying to capture with my phrase "austere gamism".

I think the A3>A4 example is interesting in reflecting on this because it shows that heavily gamist play (which is at least what I see A4 as supporting) can still involve (hard) scene framing rather than "continous play"/soft scene framing. But it does require some departure from skillful play/austere gamism. This, in turn, requires an increse in trust of the GM not to deprotagonise the PCs.

I think that 4e is at least mildly incoherent on this particular issue. The skill challenge mechanics work best (it seems to me, from reading them, from comparing them to what I regard as similar mechanics, and from experience GMing them) in combination with hard scene framing - once the players have explained what they're doing and made their rolls it's done, the scene resolves itself, we move on. But 4e still has a lot of fiddly stuff in the equipment list - lengths of rope, thieving tools, and more (I gather) from Dragon magazines - that encourage attempts by the players to keep the scene open, to try to respond to failed die rolls with "But what about our 10' pole, and our ear-trumpet with wire lattice" etc. It doesn't surprise me that games that rely more heavily on hard scene framing do away with these sort of minutiae, or frontload them into the character's attributes (so they've already been taken account of in the skill roll), rather than leave them in the game. This also helps resolve the GM trust issue (the players only have to trust the GM to abide by the dice rolls, and not also to be fair in giving them opportunities to use their 10' pole).

Writing this post has made me curious about the opposit - if fiddly minutiae and the sort of GM-trust issues they can give rise to create a push away from hard scene framing and towards soft scene framing/continuous play, what about the reverse? Are there any sandbox players out there who do away with the minutiae while (I assume) sticking to soft rather than hard scene framing (given that the latter seems a bit antithetical to sandboxing)?


----------



## pemerton (May 19, 2010)

@Hussar - Basic D&D relies on the sort of scene framing you describe, because there are no rules for handling the trips back and forth between town and dungeon. I imagine at least some Tunnels and Trolls play is also similar to this.

I also find it interesting that both you and Wolf1066 are using an ingame rationale (PC membership of particular organisations) to help justify your scene framing. What I'm trying to do in my approach to GMing - in order to reduce the boring bits, but hopefully without vitiating my players' choices - is to use more of this hard/aggressive scene framing _without bothering about_ any ingame rationale - just like Basic D&D and T&T. I think some of my players have somewhat ingrained simulationist sensibilities that might be a little offended by this, but I'm hoping that the simulationism is "by habit" rather than "by desire", so that if it's clear that they're not being robbed of XPs or the ability to do interesting stuff, they'll be more ready to let it go.


----------



## Wolf1066 (May 19, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I've heard the term "Agressive Scene Framing" thrown around on occassion.  I think that might describe things better than "hard".  Celebrim is right in that pretty much any "encounter" (by pretty much any definition of the term) is a framed scene.  You have an initial set up, and the scenario begins.
> 
> Agressive Scene Framing allows the GM to simply dictate most or all of the initial elements of the scenario.  Imagine a dungeon crawl, but, instead of searching doors and corridors for traps, every bit between each encounter was simply narrated by the GM.  That would be agressive scene framing.
> 
> ...



I occasionally will do that to set up an initial scenario - such as much of the preamble to getting the characters to Australia then their boss's office then esconced in their new lodgings (provided for them by their employer).  Along the way, there were opportunities for the players to do things but for the most part it was scripted and did run on "rollerskates" as they were whisked along by circumstance, then it eased up and the players were cut free to move as they desire.

Rather than giving them a lengthier back story that included them being hired and sent to Australia and having the adventure/gaming sessions start off with their first day on the job, they had a session in which the players went through the stages of the shift - starting at their first meeting at the employment broker's office (where they were inexplicably measured up by tailors) to travelling by plane to Adelaide then by Maglev to Streaky Bay, spending their first night in town in a "Coffin Hotel" and meeting their boss.  The players were able to participate in the learning about the place - I didn't just give them screeds of info, I let them roll awareness etc and fed them what they observed based on the results etc - but for the most part it was a train trip to walk the players through the set up.

In the process, I fed them a few references to things that may or may not pique their interest for later investigation and made part of their back story a bit more memorable and visual than a few paragraphs to the effect of "you were selected for a team and sent to Australia, where you are now staying in an apartment provided by your boss."

They got to size up their boss, role play interacting with him, listen to his pitch and, most importantly, formulate their own opinions as to what he's like, rather being told.

Now that it's over, I don't see any need for that level of "scene  framing" ever again.  The characters are now in place to wander around  and interact with the environment and other characters and find out  about the bits that interest them.  They have a smattering of local knowledge, having gone through the steps of arriving in town and travelling around it, and hopefully have an idea of what they personally want to learn more about.

For the most part, I want to keep the stuff that they don't have a lot of control over whether they do it or not - like turning up at work, making pick-ups or drop-offs and such - as open to player interpretation as possible ("this is where you need to start and finish, this is what's in the way - now make it happen") and I want to leave their out-of-work hours as player-driven as possible.

Sure, I'll throw out or dangle plot hooks and enticements, throw in curveballs and interesting NPCs, obstacles and unexpected tragedies etc - but how the players react to them and decide to progress should now be the game play.  I certainly don't feel the need to go down the "OK, you have to take this package from XYZ Corp so you ride there on your bikes, pick it up, ride into town, run across a gang..." route from here on in.

I want the game to have its surprising twists and turns at the hands of the players - like when Mike took the incident with the juvenile mugger (which I would have bet money would have finished up with the mugger handed over to the authorities and Juvie Court at the very best) and twisted it into his own fiendish plot.

The "scene" (in the context of the location/era/zeitgeist in which the action occurs) is now set and framed as scenes usually are, the characters are in their situation as people tend to be, things are going on around them as things often do - now the players can get on with running their characters' lives in accordance with what their goals are.

They have a world to explore and a means of earning the income to do so.  They have their skills, attributes, talents, weaknesses and basic equipment - including some motorbikes.  Whatever else they decide they want, they'll have to go out and get it.

They are currently in Sewth Ostrylia, but for all I know, they might want to wander off and buy some fesh 'n' cheps in Sedny - or feesh 'n' cheeps in Breesbin...


----------



## Hussar (May 19, 2010)

Pemerton said:
			
		

> vitiating




Y'know, this is the first time I've ever seen this word.  Cool, I learned a new word today.    Can't posrep you for it, must spread around  et al.


----------



## Argyle King (May 20, 2010)

Personally, I do feel it's important to speak to the players about what their characters were doing before the 'official' start of the game. There are many players who won't care where you start them, but there are just as many players (myself included) who would feel somewhat cheated if my character joined the campaign via some sort of circumstance which is at odds with my character's story and personality. Usually, for me as a GM, this goes one of two ways.


The first way is that I as a GM have a starting point in mind. In this instance, I would speak to the players pre-game and give them a brief idea about where they are, what's going on in the campaign world, and what things a typical character would know. I then might say that they will all be starting in the tavern. Going this route, the players already know where I plan to start, and they will create characters they want to create, but characters who also fit into what I've already established.


The second way typically occurs when I don't have a starting point in mind. In this instance, I only give the players their mechanical character creation guidelines - level of character and such. I usually also encourage the players to detail where they are from and their background, and I allow them to create some of the campaign world by doing so. Going this route, I know where the players plan to start, and I will create something around what they have established.


In practice I usually do some amount of each, but these are two different styles which I've noticed that I seem to perform. In either case, I feel it's important for a GM to speak to the group about what they want. It's also important for the players to understand what the GM wants; many people forget that the game is supposed to be fun for the GM too. A lot of problems I've seen occur in games tend to be a result of either a lack of communication or a miscommunication.


----------

