In defence of illusionism

[HidesHisEyes]

I wrote this as a post in the current thread on railroading in response to a post there, then decided I might be opening a can of worms and that I should make a new thread for it. So here’s my long and rambling defence of the concept of illusionism, in case anyone wants to hear it:




Railroading is bad, because it is by definition bad. Illusionism is bad, because it is by definition bad. But the tool of "changing established facts" can, theoretically, have consequences that aren't horrific for all groups in all circumstances.


I’m gonna drop my nuclear take and say illusionism is good actually, but you might think I’m using the term in a way no one else uses it and I need a new term.

To me, illusionism is as opposed to something like… definitism? Definitism is when the GM has the game world all planned out and treats it as something that exists in spite of the players, a place that would still exist even if the game itself never took place. The only sense in which it’s literally true is that it exists in the GM’s notebook/binder/hyperlinked electronic document, but people like to think of it that way because it seems easier to act honestly and preserve player agency. If room 6 has an ogre in it in the prep and that’s treated as a fact independent of the actual game, it’s easier to react honestly to the players’ choices when they come to room 6 - or choose to go to a different room. The GM can disavow responsibility for what happens by saying “hey this is the world, you’re just dropped into it.”

And that’s fine. But of course it’s still an illusion really, and the GM hasn’t really disowned responsibility, they’ve just passed it on to past them who did the prep. It’s still an illusion, it always will be, it’s make believe.

So for me, illusionism means embracing the fact that it’s an illusion. You still prep, but your prep is less building a world and more creating a toolkit of elements that can be deployed as needed during actual play. None of it is canon until it’s spoken at the table.

As I’ve said before I think the business of respecting players’ agency can be done at the table, live. You can decide on a whim that the potential (“quantum” if you like) ogre that you wrote in your prep as a free-floating possibility is down the passage to the left. Then if the players examine the floor of that passage you can say they find ogre tracks, and if they go right then you have them not meet the ogre. The players still have agency and their choice is still meaningful. You just haven’t tied yourself down to a fixed, definite idea of the game world. I think this is a great way to run a campaign, if you run the whole campaign that way on a basic level. Illusionist techniques can certainly be used for evil, like when you use them and then DON’T respect player agency, typically because you’re railroading (which I DO consider bad).

Of course, there’s an art to making decisions at the table. I think the key is to base your decisions on the right things, and have everyone at the table know what those things are. Often in these conversations people talk as though the only possible options are “it has to fit my predetermined narrative” or “it has to follow the internal logic of the world perfectly”. But these aren’t the only options. PbtA games usually have a big list of “GM principles” for this reason, and they’re things like “be a fan of the characters”, “fill their lives with adventure” and “portray an interesting and exciting world”. These are the stars you navigate by when you have to make a decision in the moment about what happens next, and they allow you to play with only a toolkit of potential elements that you deploy and combine as needed to get the best possible game and narrative when you sit down at the table. For me, this is much better than railroading and it’s much better than spending hours prepping a fixed independent world parts of which the players won’t even be interested in.

Sorry for rambling, had to stick up for illusionism.

[OldTrees1]

I’m gonna drop my nuclear take and say illusionism is good actually, but you might think I’m using the term in a way no one else uses it and I need a new term.

To me, illusionism is as opposed to something like… definitism? Definitism is when the GM has the game world all planned out and treats it as something that exists in spite of the players, a place that would still exist even if the game itself never took place.

You are using the term in a way unrelated to the typical meaning.

You are describing the opposite of the high verisimilitude world (your definitize is the "high prep" "session -1 prep" version of the high verisimilitude world).

Illusionism is typically defined as hiding or obscuring any railroading mechanics so that the players don't / can't notice the railroading. If you use the neutral definition of railroading, then Illusionism also has a neutral definition unless the GM is betraying player trust. The negative definition of Illusionism probably requires the GM betraying player trust.


The players still have agency and their choice is still meaningful. You just haven’t tied yourself down to a fixed, definite idea of the game world.

This captures the difference quite well. You are talking about how the world does not already exist. Parts of world get created as needed. This means most of the prep would be preparing things (characters, places, situations, scenes) but not placing them. This will mean they will be placed like a Quantum Ogre however you are not describing placing in a way that requires the PCs interact. The PCs could go away and find the next piece of content.

You definition is not tied down to disguising this mechanism. Thus your definition is more about how the world is not a real place and thus can have non generated parts that are created based on what is needed at the time rather than what would have been there.

What you are describing is not my preference, but I believe a version of it is more common than my preference. If you get a unique name for your concept, then many will readily see it as normal.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I agree that this isn't illusionism as that term is usually used.

I also agree that this is a relatively normal thing...at least for me. I generally plan at two levels:
1) high level world-building. Cities, cultures, histories, metaphysics, notable people. This is basically unconnected to the ongoing campaign except that I'll focus in the areas where the party is or is likely to be. This sets the constraints for the lower-level stuff.
2) session-level planning. If it's really clear where they'll go, I'll plan that in some detail. But things like descriptions, details, etc? Yeah, those get generated on the fly. Even some exact locations of things like guards. I don't make maps on the fly, because I'm playing via VTT, where that's not really an option. Not with my art skills.

I used to try to plan for all the contingencies, plan out in detail how the adventure could go (trying to account for the branches). The parties always found some path I hadn't accounted for and I'd have to scramble to improvise anyway. So I figured I'd not waste my time with the useless planning and plan the things that I could count on--people, a few set-pieces (which may or may not get used, but often would), and often maps.

But I do use "template" structures where it makes sense. One example--the party is heading into an area where they could have decided to assault any of 4 different "keeps" (fortified tower/pyramid/structures) or a "farm". Knowing that we'd not get past one floor during this session, I planned two things:

1) the ground floor of a keep. Which one? Indeterminate. It'd be used for whichever one they attacked first, because they're all similar enough that I can change the details on the fly.
2) the farm (since it's a more individual, one-off thing).

Of course, the party decided that they'd ride their flying mounts straight down at the top of one of the towers. So now I have to plan the top parts of that. Sigh. I know what each of the keeps is and (very roughly) what's there, but I don't have playable maps or lists of contents/enemies yet.

[Thrudd]

You are advocating for less prep and more improv on the part of the GM, or GM's remembering that they don't need to follow their notes or the module slavishly, but to adapt things on the fly. Players wont really be aware of what goes on in the GM's head or what they have prepped or what they haven't. It's fine advice, and obviously PbtA games are designed specifically to require very little prep and embrace this philosophy as a rule.

I'd say Illusionism is when the GM implies to the players, or lets them believe, that the game is one way (this is an open world where I let the dice decide what happens), but is instead doing the opposite (every encounter is chosen specifically to further a plot, fudge dice behind the screen to control results). They want players to have the illusion that anything could happen and their choices can make a difference.
If players know the GM designs stories and plots, and expect to be guided from one set piece to the next as the plot is slowly revealed, it isn't illusionism.

There's a few different factors getting lumped together. How and when a GM selects content, why they select content, and how the GM presents their methods to the players.

The "how" could be complete fiat or include mechanics and tables that randomize things.
The "when" could be prior to session or improvised in the moment.
The "why" could be: to advance a plot, to give one or more characters a "moment", to demonstrate something about the setting, to break up incessant debate or non-action, just to have something you think is cool happen- or a combination of these.

How much the GM tells the players about their methods is a choice that has benefits and drawbacks at either extreme- but what they shouldn't do is lie to the players or knowingly allow players to believe they are doing something that they aren't. Tell them "sometimes I let the dice decide and sometimes I ignore the dice and choose what I think is best, and I won't always let you know which is which", if that's how you run things. Don't assume all players just know that that's how "all" GMs operate, because they don't and it isn't.

[HidesHisEyes]

All fair points. I see there’s an important distinction between “the illusion that the players have agency and freedom” and what I was describing which is “the illusion that the world is a real place”. What got me thinking about it is how often I’ve seen people look at how these illusion techniques get used to obscure a lack of agency and then decide the only way to avoid negating agency is to prep a detailed world and treat it as if it really exists. Which is faulty logic, it’s like saying dwarves are short and love beer so giants must hate beer because they’re tall, or something. But I can see the distinction between what I’ve described and the usual definition all the same. I’m open to suggestions for a word referring to the GMing style I described.

Also I hadn’t thought of fudging dice as part of illusionism, although I guess it belongs comfortably to the usual definition.

[Thrudd]

All fair points. I see there’s an important distinction between “the illusion that the players have agency and freedom” and what I was describing which is “the illusion that the world is a real place”. What got me thinking about it is how often I’ve seen people look at how these illusion techniques get used to obscure a lack of agency and then decide the only way to avoid negating agency is to prep a detailed world and treat it as if it really exists. Which is faulty logic, it’s like saying dwarves are short and love beer so giants must hate beer because they’re tall, or something. But I can see the distinction between what I’ve described and the usual definition all the same. I’m open to suggestions for a word referring to the GMing style I described.

Also I hadn’t thought of fudging dice as part of illusionism, although I guess it belongs comfortably to the usual definition.

We might be talking about a spectrum of GM prep styles. On one extreme, playing modules completely by the book (published or home made)- as little improvisation as possible. On the other extreme is the least prep possible, the most improvisation. Maybe you only have a general idea of a setting or even a genre. You let the players dictate a lot of setting elements through their PC's descriptions and backstories.

There are obviously many positions between the extremes. Both extremes have problems, so somewhere in between is probably where I'd recommend most GM's find their style.

So you might describe this as the prep/improv scale. You could say "my style is 75% prep/25% improv", or 50/50, or 20/80. Some game systems might dictate the style to some extent, or allow for a smaller range of styles than others.
The style you're describing is definitely on the more improv side of the scale.

The same person can have different prep style for different games and even for different campaigns of the same game.
For instance, I once ran a D6 Star Wars game almost entirely by improv (and by memory, with no access to my books). I used only my general knowledge of the setting, never drew a map, never really planned what would happen much before I sat down at the table. Had some rebel PCs, gave them generic-ish missions from rebel command, and just improvised the details and the complications that arose. Threw in some Jedi-sith stuff occasionally for the force sensitive PCs. Everybody had lots of fun. I'd say this style was 10/90 on the scale. Although maybe you could say the Star Wars universe was extensively prepped for me.
A previous Star Wars campaign I ran had quite a lot of prep. I drew layouts of buildings, ships and other adventure locations. Made NPCs character sheets. I planned out particular scenarios and action scenes in advance. I also improvised a lot, the PCs were mercenaries and smugglers, and often split up into two or three groups to do their own things. My planned events only constituted a portion of the sessions, so I'd say this was closer to a 50/50.

Edit PS- Also, you sort of always have to pretend the game world is a "real world", whether or not you have prepared extensive details about it. To improvise something that makes sense, you need to have at least a setting or fairly specific genre to start with. Whether you wrote down aspects of that world or if it just lives in your head, is what the prep scale describes.

[HidesHisEyes]

We might be talking about a spectrum of GM prep styles. On one extreme, playing modules completely by the book (published or home made)- as little improvisation as possible. On the other extreme is the least prep possible, the most improvisation. Maybe you only have a general idea of a setting or even a genre. You let the players dictate a lot of setting elements through their PC's descriptions and backstories.

…

Edit PS- Also, you sort of always have to pretend the game world is a "real world", whether or not you have prepared extensive details about it. To improvise something that makes sense, you need to have at least a setting or fairly specific genre to start with. Whether you wrote down aspects of that world or if it just lives in your head, is what the prep scale describes.

I don’t think it’s quite the same thing as amount of prep. I hate starting a session feeling unprepared, as a general rule, and I do tend to do quite a lot of prep. It really is more about how definite the prep is and how comfortable I am altering or throwing out things I’ve prepped while I’m at the table. It’s about how we conceptualise it for the purpose of prepping and running a game.

And you’re right of course that there does have to be a “world” in some sense even if you’re heavily improvising. But I think some people view that world as more definitive than others. And my main point is really just that having a less definitive prep-world doesn’t necessarily lead to railroading.

[Thrudd]

I don’t think it’s quite the same thing as amount of prep. I hate starting a session feeling unprepared, as a general rule, and I do tend to do quite a lot of prep. It really is more about how definite the prep is and how comfortable I am altering or throwing out things I’ve prepped while I’m at the table. It’s about how we conceptualise it for the purpose of prepping and running a game.

And you’re right of course that there does have to be a “world” in some sense even if you’re heavily improvising. But I think some people view that world as more definitive than others. And my main point is really just that having a less definitive prep-world doesn’t necessarily lead to railroading.

I see what you mean. I suppose there's a scale of "willingness to alter/ignore prepped material". Or a measurement of how much of your prep you consider "flexible", and how much is "fixed". This isn't the same as level of definition in the game setting. Because you could have an extensively detailed world that you are still willing to alter on the fly. Maybe we could say "I'm a flexible prep GM" or "I'm a fixed prep GM". Although I'd say every GM will learn eventually they need to have some degree of flexibility, as well as ability to improv, usually more than less.

I agree, less defined worlds and less prep/more improv do not automatically mean railroading. Railroading is mainly determined by the "why" question, not the "how" or "when". Why the GM chooses to include the things they include, whether written down or not.

Throw an unbeatable enemy to force the players to choose a different path, and don't allow defeat of the enemy no matter what? Railroading.
Decide a path has a powerful enemy to encourage players to go elsewhere, but allow it to be beatable if they get lucky? Or just because it makes sense for the setting to have that enemy there? Not railroading.
Choose for a bunch of enemy reinforcements to arrive in a fight? Did you do it because the players are "supposed" to lose the fight? Railroading.
Do the same thing because it makes sense in the scenario for that to happen, and it seems dramatic? Not railroading.

[King of Nowhere]

I advocate moderation. one must discriminate based on the specific case.
in particular, it is important to distinguish between a schroedinger dungeon that negates player's choices, and one that doesn't.
and the important distinction here is that random is not a choice, nor is it freedom. so the schroedinger campaign world can be applied to stuff that are random, not to stuff that depends on player choice.

this is coming across as very confuse, i'll try with examples.
If I have a plot hook or clue that my players don't know about, and i want them to find it, it's perfectly ok to drop it in any next city they visit. even though they could choose to take different roads, and in each one of those roads they would have found a burned out carriage with a lone survivor who managed to scribble something in his blood before expiring. And even if they marched faster, they'd still find the last survivor already dead. that scene was set, no matter what they did, they'd stumble on it.
But this does not violate player agency in any way. the players were not trying to stumble across this scene, indeed they had no way of knowing it. And this scene was not included to invalidate player choice, but rather to drop a plot hook. this is ok.

Then the players decide they already have other stuff they should be doing, they decide to ignore that plot hook. then i have a bunch of thugs related to that plot hook attack them. This is less than ideal. The players decided to skip that plot hook, and I am trying to push them towards it anyway. It's still not railroading, but it's nudging, and it will become railroading if i keep doing it.

But the real thing about player agency is that what they choose to do should influence the world. if that condition is met, then it's not a railroad. An evil empire is invading a smaller neighboor, and the other powers don't want to get involved in a war over some place with no strategic importance. My players decided to get involved; this may result in a war. they may have chosen to not get involved, which would have resulted in no war, but in the smaller state being assimilated. they are trying to wage guerrilla against the empire in the conquered state rather than attacking it directly; this may result in the empire deciding that keeping the new ground is too expensive and retreating. the alternative may have more likely led to open warfare.
And the players have a pretty good idea that what they are doing is making some things more or less likely. they also have a fairly good idea of the power of the empire and of other allies they may bring in. and they have those clear facts because the campaign world is well established.
This is what player agency should be about; making informed choices that will meaningfully impact the future of the campaign.

aside from that, the dm manipulating chance to get the party in the center of action is not a bad thing. first, if the dm wasn't manipulating chance to get the party there, probably they'd be having no adventure, and some other party of npcs would be doing it. second, as a human there's only so much content i can create, especially quality content. And I've been quite upfront with players about it; my world map is full of blank spaces where I said "i haven't decided what's there yet and i have no idea, please go somewhere else". but there's enough established zones with established plot hook for a campaign.

[Pex]

But I do use "template" structures where it makes sense. One example--the party is heading into an area where they could have decided to assault any of 4 different "keeps" (fortified tower/pyramid/structures) or a "farm". Knowing that we'd not get past one floor during this session, I planned two things:

1) the ground floor of a keep. Which one? Indeterminate. It'd be used for whichever one they attacked first, because they're all similar enough that I can change the details on the fly.
2) the farm (since it's a more individual, one-off thing).

Of course, the party decided that they'd ride their flying mounts straight down at the top of one of the towers. So now I have to plan the top parts of that. Sigh. I know what each of the keeps is and (very roughly) what's there, but I don't have playable maps or lists of contents/enemies yet.

HAHAHAHA

Never fails. Plan for the party to do A, B, or C. They will choose D.

Anyway . . .

I'm not bothered by the Quantum Ogre. Some DMs can improvise, other can't. No big deal. It only becomes a problem when it's established where the ogre is, the party chooses to avoid it, but they encounter the ogre anyway.

[Psyren]

I agree that this isn't illusionism as that term is usually used.

I also agree that this is a relatively normal thing...at least for me. I generally plan at two levels:
1) high level world-building. Cities, cultures, histories, metaphysics, notable people. This is basically unconnected to the ongoing campaign except that I'll focus in the areas where the party is or is likely to be. This sets the constraints for the lower-level stuff.
2) session-level planning. If it's really clear where they'll go, I'll plan that in some detail. But things like descriptions, details, etc? Yeah, those get generated on the fly. Even some exact locations of things like guards. I don't make maps on the fly, because I'm playing via VTT, where that's not really an option. Not with my art skills.

I used to try to plan for all the contingencies, plan out in detail how the adventure could go (trying to account for the branches). The parties always found some path I hadn't accounted for and I'd have to scramble to improvise anyway. So I figured I'd not waste my time with the useless planning and plan the things that I could count on--people, a few set-pieces (which may or may not get used, but often would), and often maps.

But I do use "template" structures where it makes sense. One example--the party is heading into an area where they could have decided to assault any of 4 different "keeps" (fortified tower/pyramid/structures) or a "farm". Knowing that we'd not get past one floor during this session, I planned two things:

1) the ground floor of a keep. Which one? Indeterminate. It'd be used for whichever one they attacked first, because they're all similar enough that I can change the details on the fly.
2) the farm (since it's a more individual, one-off thing).

Of course, the party decided that they'd ride their flying mounts straight down at the top of one of the towers. So now I have to plan the top parts of that. Sigh. I know what each of the keeps is and (very roughly) what's there, but I don't have playable maps or lists of contents/enemies yet.

With respect, if the players have "flying mounts" then you should probably plan for what's on top of any structure you expect them to want to go to. Either that, or disable flying to that destination as a strategy - take the mounts away, put a storm or high wind in place, lots of archers/sentries etc.



I'm not bothered by the Quantum Ogre. Some DMs can improvise, other can't. No big deal. It only becomes a problem when it's established where the ogre is, the party chooses to avoid it, but they encounter the ogre anyway.

What if the party successfully avoids the Ogre, but it's still nearby - and then through a combination of poor decisions and/or bad rolls they make a loud racket that attracts it? Even as a player I wouldn't be upset by that (not upset at the GM at any rate.)

[Pex]

What if the party successfully avoids the Ogre, but it's still nearby - and then through a combination of poor decisions and/or bad rolls they make a loud racket that attracts it? Even as a player I wouldn't be upset by that (not upset at the GM at any rate.)

It's not about the ogre.

[Cluedrew]

Yes its not about the orge, its about having your choices matter. A railroad has the same structure as a path, really the only difference is player buy-in. A good linear adventure sets up a path that the players can follow - and then getting the buy-in so they follow it - while a railroad negates anything they try to do to leave it (the "rails").

And by some definitions illusionism is just railroading, but lying about it. I think that form of illusionism is rather beyond defence. However its kind of like someone claiming to have supernatural powers (who doesn't) vs. a magician. Don't lie to people, they will figure it out eventually (usually) and if they are OK with it why hide it to begin with. Which is not quite the same as explaining every last minute decision you have made, just being open about making them.

[Frogreaver]

Yes its not about the orge, its about having your choices matter. A railroad has the same structure as a path, really the only difference is player buy-in. A good linear adventure sets up a path that the players can follow - and then getting the buy-in so they follow it - while a railroad negates anything they try to do to leave it (the "rails").

And by some definitions illusionism is just railroading, but lying about it. I think that form of illusionism is rather beyond defence. However its kind of like someone claiming to have supernatural powers (who doesn't) vs. a magician. Don't lie to people, they will figure it out eventually (usually) and if they are OK with it why hide it to begin with. Which is not quite the same as explaining every last minute decision you have made, just being open about making them.

I'd say most of what commonly gets called railroading isn't actually bad.

[Psyren]

It's not about the ogre.

My point is that not every outcome that negates the PC's efforts is a bad outcome. Efforts are just that, efforts, and efforts can fail.

[JNAProductions]

My point is that not every outcome that negates the PC's efforts is a bad outcome. Efforts are just that, efforts, and efforts can fail.

I think it's a matter of degree and what the exact situation is.

"Path A leads through the ogre's den, and is the faster way. Path B goes around it, and is a little longer."
-If the players choose Path B, but make a lot of noise, they can reasonably expect to encounter the ogre anyway. It's not that far away.

"To the north are ogres. To the south is a thriving metropolis. East has elves, and west has a volcano."
-If the players go south, encountering ogres would be rather out of place, and feel much more like the DM is forcing it on them.

[Psyren]

I think it's a matter of degree and what the exact situation is.

"Path A leads through the ogre's den, and is the faster way. Path B goes around it, and is a little longer."
-If the players choose Path B, but make a lot of noise, they can reasonably expect to encounter the ogre anyway. It's not that far away.

"To the north are ogres. To the south is a thriving metropolis. East has elves, and west has a volcano."
-If the players go south, encountering ogres would be rather out of place, and feel much more like the DM is forcing it on them.

Sure, I'd agree with that. It all comes down to telegraphing.

[noob]

I wrote this as a post in the current thread on railroading in response to a post there, then decided I might be opening a can of worms and that I should make a new thread for it. So here’s my long and rambling defence of the concept of illusionism, in case anyone wants to hear it:



I’m gonna drop my nuclear take and say illusionism is good actually, but you might think I’m using the term in a way no one else uses it and I need a new term.

To me, illusionism is as opposed to something like… definitism? Definitism is when the GM has the game world all planned out and treats it as something that exists in spite of the players, a place that would still exist even if the game itself never took place. The only sense in which it’s literally true is that it exists in the GM’s notebook/binder/hyperlinked electronic document, but people like to think of it that way because it seems easier to act honestly and preserve player agency. If room 6 has an ogre in it in the prep and that’s treated as a fact independent of the actual game, it’s easier to react honestly to the players’ choices when they come to room 6 - or choose to go to a different room. The GM can disavow responsibility for what happens by saying “hey this is the world, you’re just dropped into it.”

And that’s fine. But of course it’s still an illusion really, and the GM hasn’t really disowned responsibility, they’ve just passed it on to past them who did the prep. It’s still an illusion, it always will be, it’s make believe.

So for me, illusionism means embracing the fact that it’s an illusion. You still prep, but your prep is less building a world and more creating a toolkit of elements that can be deployed as needed during actual play. None of it is canon until it’s spoken at the table.

As I’ve said before I think the business of respecting players’ agency can be done at the table, live. You can decide on a whim that the potential (“quantum” if you like) ogre that you wrote in your prep as a free-floating possibility is down the passage to the left. Then if the players examine the floor of that passage you can say they find ogre tracks, and if they go right then you have them not meet the ogre. The players still have agency and their choice is still meaningful. You just haven’t tied yourself down to a fixed, definite idea of the game world. I think this is a great way to run a campaign, if you run the whole campaign that way on a basic level. Illusionist techniques can certainly be used for evil, like when you use them and then DON’T respect player agency, typically because you’re railroading (which I DO consider bad).

Of course, there’s an art to making decisions at the table. I think the key is to base your decisions on the right things, and have everyone at the table know what those things are. Often in these conversations people talk as though the only possible options are “it has to fit my predetermined narrative” or “it has to follow the internal logic of the world perfectly”. But these aren’t the only options. PbtA games usually have a big list of “GM principles” for this reason, and they’re things like “be a fan of the characters”, “fill their lives with adventure” and “portray an interesting and exciting world”. These are the stars you navigate by when you have to make a decision in the moment about what happens next, and they allow you to play with only a toolkit of potential elements that you deploy and combine as needed to get the best possible game and narrative when you sit down at the table. For me, this is much better than railroading and it’s much better than spending hours prepping a fixed independent world parts of which the players won’t even be interested in.

Sorry for rambling, had to stick up for illusionism.

There is next step illusionism: there never had been any preparation and you are making new encounters in real time.
You never avoided encountering ogres by choosing to not go through the forest because there was nothing specific planned for the forest and the forest did not exist 5 minutes ago.
There is nothing that exists and so you are not really choosing a path in a fictional world.

[Frogreaver]

There is next step illusionism: there never had been any preparation and you are making new encounters in real time.
You never avoided encountering ogres by choosing to not go through the forest because there was nothing specific planned for the forest and the forest did not exist 5 minutes ago.
There is nothing that exists and so you are not really choosing a path in a fictional world.

In a more prep style game - when does the fiction begin to exist?

[OldTrees1]

In a more prep style game - when does the fiction begin to exist?

Depends on the prep (I am assuming your question is coherent).

In my case I create the world as a concept in my mind before session 1. Then during the campaign I can query the campaign world to learn more about the campaign world. As a result most of the campaign world exists before session 1 despite me not explicitly creating most of it.

There are some GMs that prep in a manner where the fiction exists years (or decades?) before the campaign.

There are some GMs that create the world in parts and prepare adventures at a time. So those parts of the fiction begin to exist at those times. Sufficiently in advance of when the PCs would interact with them.

[kyoryu]

To me, illusionism is as opposed to something like… definitism? Definitism is when the GM has the game world all planned out and treats it as something that exists in spite of the players, a place that would still exist even if the game itself never took place. The only sense in which it’s literally true is that it exists in the GM’s notebook/binder/hyperlinked electronic document, but people like to think of it that way because it seems easier to act honestly and preserve player agency. If room 6 has an ogre in it in the prep and that’s treated as a fact independent of the actual game, it’s easier to react honestly to the players’ choices when they come to room 6 - or choose to go to a different room. The GM can disavow responsibility for what happens by saying “hey this is the world, you’re just dropped into it.”

And that’s fine. But of course it’s still an illusion really, and the GM hasn’t really disowned responsibility, they’ve just passed it on to past them who did the prep. It’s still an illusion, it always will be, it’s make believe.

So for me, illusionism means embracing the fact that it’s an illusion. You still prep, but your prep is less building a world and more creating a toolkit of elements that can be deployed as needed during actual play. None of it is canon until it’s spoken at the table.

Sorta agree, sorta disagree. You're talking a lot about what I call the "grey area" or the "indeterminate" or "unknown" areas. Like, when we plan out a game world, there are things we know are true, and things we know are false. And there are things we haven't really determined yet. Those areas exist in all games, it's just a matter of how much aware you are of them and how they get filled in.

(Of course, once something is spoken at the table, it is inviolable. At least,


As I’ve said before I think the business of respecting players’ agency can be done at the table, live. You can decide on a whim that the potential (“quantum” if you like) ogre that you wrote in your prep as a free-floating possibility is down the passage to the left. Then if the players examine the floor of that passage you can say they find ogre tracks, and if they go right then you have them not meet the ogre. The players still have agency and their choice is still meaningful. You just haven’t tied yourself down to a fixed, definite idea of the game world. I think this is a great way to run a campaign, if you run the whole campaign that way on a basic level. Illusionist techniques can certainly be used for evil, like when you use them and then DON’T respect player agency, typically because you’re railroading (which I DO consider bad).

Well, there's always some of this going on, unless you're running the railroadiest railroad to ever rail road. I think that there's value in being aware of this space, and leaving some of it deliberately vague. PCs want to go to an inn called the Purple Worm? Of course it's there. They want to go to the Mage's Guild? Of course there's one, even if you hadn't decided on that yet.

But I think there's also value in having some things predetermined. I think that can give a sense of concreteness to the world. The question is where you draw that line.

In your example of the ogre, knowing where the ogre is means that it's a lot easier to have the ogre's existence ripple out, interact with the world, and make it real. Various marks on the walls, the smell, the reaction of other creatures in the area.... all of those can be done if you know where the ogre is, and it's a lot harder if you haven't decided that yet.

The real advantage of going super far down that path is that for people used to more linear games, it removes the ability to do the "wrong" kind of prep, and forces them to think on their feet more. Getting rid of the ability to do that kind of node-based prep can be a useful tool.


Of course, there’s an art to making decisions at the table. I think the key is to base your decisions on the right things, and have everyone at the table know what those things are. Often in these conversations people talk as though the only possible options are “it has to fit my predetermined narrative” or “it has to follow the internal logic of the world perfectly”. But these aren’t the only options. PbtA games usually have a big list of “GM principles” for this reason, and they’re things like “be a fan of the characters”, “fill their lives with adventure” and “portray an interesting and exciting world”.

May I remind you that an AW principle is "Always say what your prep demands?" (pg 81, AW2e) While AW has a reputation of being completely on-the-fly, ask-the-players-everything, that's really only advice given for the first session. And the advice for what to do after the first session basically boil down to..... prep. Making things solid. Now, that's still not the "you will do X, Y, and Z in that order" style of prep, but it's prep nonetheless. It's fleshing out the world, and AW does tell you to say what your prep demands.


There is next step illusionism: there never had been any preparation and you are making new encounters in real time.
You never avoided encountering ogres by choosing to not go through the forest because there was nothing specific planned for the forest and the forest did not exist 5 minutes ago.
There is nothing that exists and so you are not really choosing a path in a fictional world.

I don't think that's accurate, or fair. You still find out about things the same way. You ask the GM "what's to the north of the city" and they say "forest". Or have a map. Once it's been said, it's concrete, and doesn't get to change. And from your perspective, the GM is still telling you things. You just don't know if it was decided a minute ago or a month ago - and do you ever, really? Note that I'm not really advocating for this at the extreme, but from a player POV (except for some disadvantages around "ripple effects" as mentioned above) it looks pretty much the same. That's the "illusion" in this case - the illusion that the world always existed.

[Easy e]

This forum needs a glossary of terms.

To me, the greatest factor of an RPG is creating the "illusion" that it matters. To be fair, nothing that happens in an RPG matters, as the game can evolve past any event. In a board game, you win or you lose. In a video game, you beat the game or you do not. Those elements do not exist in a RPG. You do not "win" an RPG, you play (or experience) an RPG.

Therefore, the central illusion, is the "Illusion of Choice". To me, that means the illusion that the choices a player makes actually matters in the first place. Does it really matter if you ride North, South, East of West? No, because the GM can make anything appear no matter which direction you go. However, with the "illusion of choice" intact, it feels like deciding to go North will lead to something different than if you went South.

That is the "special sauce" of RPGs. The "illusion" that your choices matter in this make-believe world that does not exist. Without this central "illusion" RPGs do not truly exist.

[OldTrees1]

This forum needs a glossary of terms.

To me, the greatest factor of an RPG is creating the "illusion" that it matters. To be fair, nothing that happens in an RPG matters, as the game can evolve past any event. In a board game, you win or you lose. In a video game, you beat the game or you do not. Those elements do not exist in a RPG. You do not "win" an RPG, you play (or experience) an RPG.

Therefore, the central illusion, is the "Illusion of Choice". To me, that means the illusion that the choices a player makes actually matters in the first place. Does it really matter if you ride North, South, East of West? No, because the GM can make anything appear no matter which direction you go. However, with the "illusion of choice" intact, it feels like deciding to go North will lead to something different than if you went South.

That is the "special sauce" of RPGs. The "illusion" that your choices matter in this make-believe world that does not exist. Without this central "illusion" RPGs do not truly exist.

"Illusion of choice" is when the players are presented with something that appears to be a choice but is not a choice. The term as defined is not the same as your usage.

If I ask the PCs if they are going North or South I am presenting something that appears to be a choice, there could be a difference (informed or uninformed choice) vs no difference (illusion of choice).

If I am playing a game and I discover my choices did not matter, then the illusion of choice would be broken.

This means there are 4 states:
Informed choice: There is an actual choice and the player knows it
Uninformed choice: There is an actual choice but the player does not know it
Illusion of Choice: No choice but disguised as if there were a choice
Obvious non choice: No choice and the player knows it

[JNAProductions]

"Illusion of choice" is when the players are presented with something that appears to be a choice but is not a choice. The term as defined is not the same as your usage.

If I ask the PCs if they are going North or South, there could be a difference (actual choice) vs no difference (illusion of choice).

If I am playing a game and I discover my choices did not matter, then the illusion of choice would be broken.

This means there are 4 states:
Informed choice: There is an actual choice and the player knows it
Uninformed choice: There is an actual choice but the player does not know it
Illusion of Choice: No choice but disguised as if there were a choice
Obvious non choice: No choice and the player knows it

Yeah, echoing this. Choices in RPGs might only matter in the context of the RPG itself (even other tables don't generally care what choices you make, let alone people who DON'T partake in this hobby) but they're still real choices. Or at least, should be.

[kyoryu]

This forum needs a glossary of terms.

To me, the greatest factor of an RPG is creating the "illusion" that it matters. To be fair, nothing that happens in an RPG matters, as the game can evolve past any event. In a board game, you win or you lose. In a video game, you beat the game or you do not. Those elements do not exist in a RPG. You do not "win" an RPG, you play (or experience) an RPG.

Therefore, the central illusion, is the "Illusion of Choice". To me, that means the illusion that the choices a player makes actually matters in the first place. Does it really matter if you ride North, South, East of West? No, because the GM can make anything appear no matter which direction you go. However, with the "illusion of choice" intact, it feels like deciding to go North will lead to something different than if you went South.

That is the "special sauce" of RPGs. The "illusion" that your choices matter in this make-believe world that does not exist. Without this central "illusion" RPGs do not truly exist.

But they should matter. If you had a multiverse and could view how the game changed as a result of that decision, it shouldn't look the same after making that decision. And certainly the multiverse versions should diverge significantly after multiple decisions.

That's not true of course if you're running a more linear game, and especially if your players are aware of that. But that's only one style of play.

[Quertus]

Despite being quoted in the OP, I really don't have much to add. I agree with the consensus, that what the OP describes isn't Illusionism, by the normal definitions. Which is why (despite not being good at it myself) I think having good definitions is important to clear communication.

I think that the most important part is right here:



the key is to base your decisions on the right things, and have everyone at the table know what those things are.

I think that the modern buzzwords would be "informed consent".

However, at a subtle level, that includes the GM being aware of their own biases.

As for prep vs… uh… line? "Extemporaneous"? Y'all know what I mean, I'm sure. Anyway, that's… complicated. Not quite as complicated as my definition of "role-playing" and thereby of "RPG", but related.

Something which is just created in the moment is… lacking. It lacks the foreshadowing, the player agency to not just investigate but "deduce without investigation" from the context clues. And leads to inconsistencies from connections not having been thought through: "but it can't be a Dragon - you said…". And it can't be made free of bias, especially bias caused by knowledge of the party's capabilities (one if the reasons I don't want the GM to know the party's capabilities, for when they *do* need to make mid-game decisions). So it's many layers of denial of agency (lack of Agency? Not creating natural agency in the first place? Whatever. Point is, it involves less agency than "prefab"), and I oppose it on principal.

So I am against… Hmmm… "unnecessary spontaneity". And "informed/influenced design". Because opposing those, like opposing railroading, increases agency. Even if those are not, themselves, identical to railroading.

[Easy e]

"Illusion of choice" is when the players are presented with something that appears to be a choice but is not a choice. The term as defined is not the same as your usage.


That's why we need a glossary.

[OldTrees1]

That's why we need a glossary.

True, but how extensive of a glossary? Do we need a dictionary?

Illusion of Choice is a term the forum inherited from the larger discussion of player choice in games (not just RPGs). Unfortunately it is a well known term but I did not find a great source to link. (I found some okay sources, but ... here is one link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45PdtGDGhac))

[HidesHisEyes]

There is next step illusionism: there never had been any preparation and you are making new encounters in real time.
You never avoided encountering ogres by choosing to not go through the forest because there was nothing specific planned for the forest and the forest did not exist 5 minutes ago.
There is nothing that exists and so you are not really choosing a path in a fictional world.

Yeah this would be an extreme version of what I’m talking about. Even in this situation I’d say it’s still entirely possible to respect player agency, it just might take a bit more mental bandwidth as you’d have to mentally keep track of a lot of things. You might find yourself doing a lot of the improv world-building when the players ask for information. Like they ask what’s to the east and you decide there and then it’s a forest, and they ask what lives in the forest and you say ogres. Then if they deliberately avoid the forest because they don’t want to run into an ogre, you should probably remember not to include an ogre.

As always our old pal the ogre is a VERY narrow, specific example to make a very broad point. What I’ve just described, you would have to apply as a general principle throughout that whole game. And once things have been established at the table they become canon (at least provisionally) and then you probably have to take them into account in future to preserve agency.

But again, my point was just that none of this is railroading. Consensus seems to be it’s also not what people mean when they say “illusionism”, which is fair enough.

[Frogreaver]

The whole game is about getting the players to suspend their disbelief that a fictional fantasy world is real. That's illusionism if I've ever heard it.

What often is meant by illusionism here is really - illusory railroad - but even then defining railroad is fraught with perils and often ends up being defined far to broadly such that it includes things that are harmless in themselves.

[OldTrees1]

The whole game is about getting the players to suspend their disbelief that a fictional fantasy world is real. That's illusionism if I've ever heard it.

What often is meant by illusionism here is really - illusory railroad - but even then defining railroad is fraught with perils and often ends up being defined far to broadly such that it includes things that are harmless in themselves.

Aka the person that coined the name of for an illusory railroad called it Illusionism and thus you will encounter the word Illusionism used with the definition that you would have named illusory railroad if you got to it sooner.

[Frogreaver]

Aka the person that coined the name of for an illusory railroad called it Illusionism and thus you will encounter the word Illusionism used with the definition that you would have named illusory railroad if you got to it sooner.

IMO. If your going to use a term to discuss a concept then at least use a specific one.

[OldTrees1]

IMO. If your going to use a term to discuss a concept then at least use a specific one.

It is a specific term. You are objecting over the name of the specific term not mapping as a literal translation of the definition of the specific term. I understand and sympathize with that objection. However Greenland is still Greenland even if it is not a very green land.

[Composer99]

While accepting that what is happening in the fiction layer of the game is illusion as a matter of fact, I think discussions on RPG gameplay kind of have to move past that fact in order to be productive and constructive.

For instance, regardless of that above fact, how players perceive and are affected by (in terms of affect as a term of art in cognitive psychology) gameplay, and how important or unimportant having a feeling of agency and of the existence of meaningful choice is to them - these are things that matter in an RPG and in talking about how RPGs work.

IMO (at any rate), the player characters, being the characters in the fiction on whom the most attention is paid by the game's players (including the GM), are the most important characters for the purpose of gameplay (even if they are not the most important within the fiction). It follows (IMO) that the emergent narrative of RPG gameplay flows from the things the player characters choose to do, and that therefore the players must be offered what feels to them like meaningful things for their characters to do and what feels to them like meaningful choices for those characters to make. They don't have to take the game up on that offer if they don't want - there's nothing wrong with being what amounts to a spectator of the GM's narration, if that's what you want - but the game ought to at least offer those things to them.

By my reckoning, then, I agree with definitions of illusion of choice that situate it within the context of gameplay, rather than appealing to the illusory nature of the gameplay fiction writ large, because those definitions can forward productive and constructive ways of thinking about, talking about, designing, and playing RPGs (as a non-GM player, yes, but especially as a GM).

For the TL,DR summary:
- Defining the illusion of choice at the meta-game layer (where everything is an illusion because it's all made up) is unhelpful, unproductive, and unconstructive.
- Defining the illusion of choice at the in-game fiction layer (where we are pretending that creatures in the game world have meaningful choices, especially the player characters who are at the centre of the fiction) is helpful, productive, and constructive.
- All else being equal, within the in-game fiction layer, it is better to offer meaningful choices where you can to players rather than to offer the illusion of choice, subject to the players' willingness to take you up on that offer.

[Frogreaver]

While accepting that what is happening in the fiction layer of the game is illusion as a matter of fact, I think discussions on RPG gameplay kind of have to move past that fact in order to be productive and constructive.

For instance, regardless of that above fact, how players perceive and are affected by (in terms of affect as a term of art in cognitive psychology) gameplay, and how important or unimportant having a feeling of agency and of the existence of meaningful choice is to them - these are things that matter in an RPG and in talking about how RPGs work.

IMO (at any rate), the player characters, being the characters in the fiction on whom the most attention is paid by the game's players (including the GM), are the most important characters for the purpose of gameplay (even if they are not the most important within the fiction). It follows (IMO) that the emergent narrative of RPG gameplay flows from the things the player characters choose to do, and that therefore the players must be offered what feels to them like meaningful things for their characters to do and what feels to them like meaningful choices for those characters to make. They don't have to take the game up on that offer if they don't want - there's nothing wrong with being what amounts to a spectator of the GM's narration, if that's what you want - but the game ought to at least offer those things to them.

By my reckoning, then, I agree with definitions of illusion of choice that situate it within the context of gameplay, rather than appealing to the illusory nature of the gameplay fiction writ large, because those definitions can forward productive and constructive ways of thinking about, talking about, designing, and playing RPGs (as a non-GM player, yes, but especially as a GM).

For the TL,DR summary:
- Defining the illusion of choice at the meta-game layer (where everything is an illusion because it's all made up) is unhelpful, unproductive, and unconstructive.
- Defining the illusion of choice at the in-game fiction layer (where we are pretending that creatures in the game world have meaningful choices, especially the player characters who are at the centre of the fiction) is helpful, productive, and constructive.
- All else being equal, within the in-game fiction layer, it is better to offer meaningful choices where you can to players rather than to offer the illusion of choice, subject to the players' willingness to take you up on that offer.

IMO, if you want to focus on the in game fiction layer then none of the stuff happening outside that fiction layer matters. In which case there is no illusion of choice because within the fiction layer there's no DM or Players, there's just the fiction. How exactly does illusionism apply to any layer but the meta layer?