The Art of Illusionism or what your players don't know won't hurt them

[RazorChain]

Illusionism is the art of impacting character decisions or just outright negating them for the benefit of telling the story the GM wants to tell. It's widely regarded as a dysfunctional style as it is done without the player knowledge or consent and the same thing can mostly be achieved by getting the players to participate on their own volition or throught a social contract.

So essentially illusionism is railroading without the players having knowledge of it. I'm pretty sure that many a heavy handed GM is trying this but fails so abysmally that the players know they are being railroaded and complain about it. So what can you do as a heavy handed railroading GM? Either you can secure your players participation or cooperation through a social contract or you can use subtlety and manipulation

Now don't let some detractors steer you away from the glorious movie experience you are going to give your players. They are going to tell you that manipulation is wrong or that you are lying to your players. We all know that agency must be sacrificed for the good of the story and if the players believe that all the good decisions were made by them anyway then who's to tell there was no agency?

We all know that GM's use a lot of tricks during their games just like illusionists. We don't go mad at illusionist for tricking us do we? Nooo sireee! We like it and want more, just like your players will feel when you have subtly manipulated them through your carefully crafted story and they are feeling awesome because of all the cool decisions "they made" and the things they experienced.

But be warned just like in Plato's theory of forms, there can be no true illusionism. That is you cannot control everything, the tighter the control the harder it gets. Which means that illusionism works best when you use it on the important parts and allow the players freedom in others because it reinforces the illusion.

So how do you go about it? How do we tell that awesome story or follow that script when the protagonists have a mind of their own?

The Illusion of Choice

The first is the art of negating player choices or the illusion of choice. You present choices and allow your players to choose but they all lead to the same result. This one we know very well from computer games, the game presents you with choice that ultimately doesn't matter, but you don't know that unless you save and take the other choice or play the game again. In RPG's there is no such thing as replaying or saving so your player will never know that their choice amounted to nothing. In practical measures it means that choosing A or B both lead to C.

The second variation is making choices a window dressing. The PC's have the choice of going through the mines of Moria or through the pass of Caradhras but you don't care so long as they go to Mordor. Choice A or B both lead to C where you want it to lead then it's just a window dressing. This is good psychology because you present limited choice that virtually amounts to nothing.

The third variation is prediction through manipulation. If you as a GM have the advantage of knowing your players, if not then you at least know their characters, then you can manipulate the players in game. You have this PC in the group, a dwarf called Gimli and when the group has the choice of going through the pass of Caradhras or the mines of Moria, you drop the background fluff about his kinsman Balin who reopened the mines and rules them. Players generally like being in the spotlight and Gimli's player should in most cases try to influence the group to go through Moria.

But what happens if your attempts fail? You are the illusionist so you can't just use heavy handed measures. So that means you have to negate your player's choices or guide them back on track.

If you have that cool encounter in the mines of Moria because one of the PC's is going to die fighting the Balrog you will block their choice of the pass of Caradhras. Illusionism is about guiding your players in gentle, non hamfisted manner. So when you block their choice of Caradhras you do so in a logical, entertaining manner and make it feel like their failure rather than just you blocking them because they weren't supposed to go there. So how can you make it look like their failure? It leads to the next technique.

Do you think these are dice you are rolling?

Every good illusionists know the game is rigged and the rolls amount to almost nothing because ultimately game of chance isn't going to stop you telling a good tale. You have decided that Gandalf will fall in the mines of Moria or your PC's can't go though the pass of Caradhras and no dice roll is going to stop you. Understanding of probability helps but isn't required.

First technique is very well known. It's misrepresenting the die roll or just fudging in layman terms. You have that handy looking GM screen that was made just so you can fudge your rolls, now put it to good use. You'll get those critical hits and fumbles at dramatic appropriate moments. The foes will hit and miss as needed. Your players will make or fail those opposed rolls when it suits the story. Ultimately your die rolls don't matter at all but it's only for the benefit of the illusion. But you can control your rolls, how do you control your player rolls?

Second Techinque is interpreting die rolls for the benefit of the story. This one is much much harder than fudging and requires both that you have good grasp of the system and improvisation. The PC's are making good headway into the pass of Caradhras because of their die luck. This is where you break things up into series of rolls because in the end they will roll badly and fail and when they fail you will spring all the bad things at them at the same time that will end in their failure. Or when Gandalf has just used his great rolls to repell the Balrog and break the bridge then you give tha Balrog that last dramatic chance to pull Gandalf down, with your fudging and an opposing strenght roll that you know Gandalf's player is never going to make. See it doesn't matter how great Gandalf rolls because you just break the action up and it seems that he's doing great until he gets pulled down.

For the benefit of the plot

The much beloved Quantum Ogre is a useful tool of an illusionist. No matter where the players go the Ogre appears. This is because you know there is no need to place the Ogre beforehand because the PC's need to run into him to advance the plot.

This is also where you put things that will happen regardless of your players effort that will move the story forward. If you need that the Assassins find the PC's then they will find them, no die roll needed. You as a GM often don't even have to explain how, but a good illusionist will have a reasonable explanation handy or hint at one. If you have that clue that the PC's need to move the story forward then you will make sure the PC's get the clue no matter what. If an event needs to happen to move the plot forward, then you will wave your magic wand and make it happen. This is regardless of the players effort to help or hinder those events.


For Dramatic Purposes

As an illusionist you will come to understand that statblocks are just guidelines, useful but not really needed. You'll have fight scenes where you want the PC's to steamroll your enemies just to make them look good and then you have fight scenes where you want them to win by the skin of their teeth. This means you can just adjust those statblocks on the fly, add to the stats to beef up the opposition or just make reinforcements pop up when dramatically appropriate. Nobody knows or cares if there were no reinforcements written down on your GM paper or in the module or that you are fine tuning your encounters on the fly. Now some stickler for rules is screaming "YOU CAN'T DO THAT, IT'S BREAKING THE RULES, IT'S CHEATING!". Now stop listening to them because there is nothing in the rules that says you can't do this.

When Bob's barbarian jumps of the cliff to chop that dragon in the head for massive damage then you'll make sure that dragon dies even though he has 20 HP left because it is dramatic. The dragon sure ain't going to die when Johnny the rogue stabs it in the toe for 1 point of damage because it only had 1 HP left, that's anticlimatic. You are trying to tell an awesome tale here, make sure that your cool encounter ends in a memorable, climatic manner.



These techniques are widely used not only in illusionism but in gaming in general, but when all added together they will make your game awesome like never before, a real cinematic experience. No Greenwoodian hamfisted railroading again!

If you have some nefarious techniques that will aid upcoming illusionist be so kind to share them.

[OldTrees1]

Where do you draw the line? How do you make sure the players will appreciate what you did rather than feel betrayed by the deception you planned? When is it a stage magician and when is it treachery?

If it depends on the Players, like so much does, then how do you find out from them without being able to ask them? Or do you draw the line before deception at that level?

[Seto]

Your tone sometimes makes me unsure whether it's second or third-degree irony.

Anyhow, here's what I like to do: taking a page from some video games, I make player choices have an impact on my ending, rather than prompt a completely different ending. So you could choose A or B and both will lead to the same general result (you will always get a variation of C and never D), but depending on your choices you might get C or C'. If you've played Chrono Trigger, you know that there are... 17 endings, I believe? They're all obtained by defeating the same final boss, but depend on what you've done in the game before.
So, using your example, whether you take the path of Moria or Caradhras, you will get to Mordor in the end (unless you die first), you will stare down the magma of Mount Doom... Will you be with your party or split up? Will you have been corrupted by the Ring or remained pure? Is Sauron aware that you're there? Is Gollum alive and ready to jump on your back? That depends on your previous choices and adventures.

...Well, I actually don't do that. Not at the campaign level anyway: I'd rather react to the players shaping the adventure and prep session after session. But I very much do that at the individual session level. It helps me use my prep, my encounters, not have to improvise too much regardless of what the players decide, while taking their choices into account. Most players don't mind that method (as long as the strings are not too apparent), because much like part of Chrono Trigger's appeal is to get all endings, they're excited to imagine what could have gone differently if they'd taken another route (and I sometimes tell them).

[RFLS]

I mean...the way you've described it, why not just write a chapter of a book once a week and forward it to the "players" ? You've removed player agency for any significant decision. Players are there to make a story with you. Barring a very specific group that just wants to be told a story for 4 hours a week, this is not what they've signed up for. This is -actually- some of the worst GMing advice I've ever seen.

[JellyPooga]

I mean...the way you've described it, why not just write a chapter of a book once a week and forward it to the "players" ? You've removed player agency for any significant decision. Players are there to make a story with you. Barring a very specific group that just wants to be told a story for 4 hours a week, this is not what they've signed up for. This is -actually- some of the worst GMing advice I've ever seen.

I...disagree. Barely. I get where you're coming from and to a degree, I understand why you've reacted the way you have. However...the OP isn't talking about being about a GM of the awful railroading sort; he's talking about a tool that every good GM uses at least once in a while. Yes, we all want Players to have as much agency as possible, because it's a social game and everyone wants their input. On the other hand, because the GM is the only one with access to the bigger picture and because the GM is the one dictating the structure and style of the world the PC's inhabit, he must be willing to pull the wool over the players eyes in order to advance the game. At least sometimes.

Consider the example the OP gives; Caradras vs. Moria. As GM of this game, you have a big ol' dungeon you want the players to explore (Moria) but you want to give the players the illusion of choice. So you present some options; take the pass over the gnarly mountain (go over), head for the gap of Rohan (go around) or go through the mines (go under). Options A and B present the players with an additional challenge to overcome; time, danger, maybe even death, but ultimately their purpose is solely to turn the players back and leave them with the only other choice; the mines.

You, as GM, want the players to explore the mines; there's some critical plot points down there (Gandalf the NPC vs. The Balrog, Gimli resolves a personal side-quest). So you can either give them some false choices and present a challenge and expand the setting with them, or you can chuck them on the railroad and tell them straight that the mines are the only way to go. The alternative of allowing the players to avoid the mines is an option, but is not always condusive to a good game or your own mental health.

Consider this scenario instead; you want there to be a big reveal of a monster and you plan to do this by having it devour an NPC in front of the players. You're not rolling dice for this one, it's just going to happen. What you didn't predict was one of the players becoming really rather attached to that NPC. When it comes to crunch time (pun intended), a player could legitimately complain that they didn't get a chance to save that NPC; they've lost agency...but you had no further purpose for that character; it's entire reason to exist was to die horribly as part of this reveal. If the player saves the NPC, that's a whole heap of additonal work you, the GM, have to do to keep that incidental character in the game. On top of that, the drama of the moment; losing a friend, being helpless to prevent tragedy happening, sorrow...is lost if you allow the scenario to become "just another combat".

Every true choice the PCs are allowed to make is a heap of extra work for a GM to do. The artistry of designing a campaign is not in allowing the players to do whatever they want; it's in giving them the impression that they're the ones calling all the shots when there's really only a few options available. You can't run the entire world, only parts of it and limiting choice is the only way to achieve this. Limiting choice looks bad (railroads are no fun), so to make up for this a good GM gives the illusion of choice.

[RFLS]

Every true choice the PCs are allowed to make is a heap of extra work for a GM to do. The artistry of designing a campaign is not in allowing the players to do whatever they want; it's in giving them the impression that they're the ones calling all the shots when there's really only a few options available. You can't run the entire world, only parts of it and limiting choice is the only way to achieve this. Limiting choice looks bad (railroads are no fun), so to make up for this a good GM gives the illusion of choice.

This is my most fundamental disagreement, I think. You're the GM. You signed up for heaps of work. If you can't respond to players doing something almost every game explicitly tells them they can do in the text, you should get out of the seat. It is your job to be able to respond to the players; not to dictate their actions, whether they know it or not.

[Cespenar]

I think every DM uses these techniques to an extent, but:

-As a rule of thumb, if you are entering a session with a fixed outcome in your mind as the DM, that's not very good DMing. In most cases.
-Video gaming abuse these techniques, because they can't be there when you make an interesting decision. Your advantage as a DM is being there as a human mind. Use that mind and improvise.
-To help improvising, build a solid outline of your setting/locations/characters. Then you can just "play" the NPCs as your players play their PCs. You can react to almost everything they do that way.

[Florian]

This is my most fundamental disagreement, I think.

No. The player never have any real form of freedom, that is the most basic illusion of them all.
Either they interact with what has been prepared beforehand (NPC, locations, plots), or they have to rely on the GM making things up along the way with them hopefully not noticing that. And yes, people who prefer improv-style rarely notice that this even has less agency, because the choices didn't have meaning in the first place).

[PersonMan]

No. The player never have any real form of freedom, that is the most basic illusion of them all.
Either they interact with what has been prepared beforehand (NPC, locations, plots), or they have to rely on the GM making things up along the way with them hopefully not noticing that. And yes, people who prefer improv-style rarely notice that this even has less agency, because the choices didn't have meaning in the first place).

So you would say that something like "In Session 13, the PCs reach the edge of the mountains and see three potential routes to cross. They choose one and make preparations. The session ends, and the GM prepares for the route they chose" doesn't involve a real choice, because the GM made all of the options? What if the PCs think of a different way across the mountains? Is it still a choice without meaning since the GM is still preparing things for them? What if each route has a vague outline, with vastly different encounters along the way?

Bringing it further, what if you have a play-by-post game? The major difference there is that the GM can present the same level of 'fully prepared' no matter where the PCs go (assuming they have the time to prep during the game, and aren't just running a module or similar without time to change things) - so the players aren't hindered by any sense of 'well if we go around the swamp, the GM's prep work is wasted and instead we have to deal with made-up-on-the-spot village encounters' or the limitations of improvised play.

Combining the two, let's say you have a PbP game where the GM has outlines for all three potential paths over the mountains, but then the players think of one the GM did not expect and go with that one. Now the GM prepares the route as it's played, with the players having potential sub-choices along their route that all branch into different encounters (of which the GM has at most a vague idea, but will fully prepare if the PCs go that way). Is this still an utter lack of freedom, because the GM is doing something no matter which way they go?

---

Consider the example the OP gives; Caradras vs. Moria. As GM of this game, you have a big ol' dungeon you want the players to explore (Moria) but you want to give the players the illusion of choice. So you present some options; take the pass over the gnarly mountain (go over), head for the gap of Rohan (go around) or go through the mines (go under). Options A and B present the players with an additional challenge to overcome; time, danger, maybe even death, but ultimately their purpose is solely to turn the players back and leave them with the only other choice; the mines.

I think that this example is flawed from the outset, because it's assuming you've already planned things ahead in detail and in an inflexible manner. In my opinion, this is a bad position for a GM to be in, with the best case scenario being 'arrange things such that my mistake doesn't screw things up' or 'get lucky because the players happen to go the route I planned'. This isn't a method for running games in any normal sense, this is damage control.

You, as GM, want the players to explore the mines; there's some critical plot points down there (Gandalf the NPC vs. The Balrog, Gimli resolves a personal side-quest). So you can either give them some false choices and present a challenge and expand the setting with them, or you can chuck them on the railroad and tell them straight that the mines are the only way to go. The alternative of allowing the players to avoid the mines is an option, but is not always condusive to a good game or your own mental health.

Assuming the mistake is already made, I'd say the best way to do things is to try and give players a reason* to go into the mines. Potentially hint at the idea of the dwarves of the mines as being potential allies, or a source for rare resources the party needs. Maybe even just a chance to rest and resupply in an actual city, with all of the obscure things a party might want.

*Beyond "it's the only way".

Consider this scenario instead; you want there to be a big reveal of a monster and you plan to do this by having it devour an NPC in front of the players. You're not rolling dice for this one, it's just going to happen. What you didn't predict was one of the players becoming really rather attached to that NPC. When it comes to crunch time (pun intended), a player could legitimately complain that they didn't get a chance to save that NPC; they've lost agency...but you had no further purpose for that character; it's entire reason to exist was to die horribly as part of this reveal. If the player saves the NPC, that's a whole heap of additonal work you, the GM, have to do to keep that incidental character in the game. On top of that, the drama of the moment; losing a friend, being helpless to prevent tragedy happening, sorrow...is lost if you allow the scenario to become "just another combat".

Players are getting attached to NPCs whose death you want to make an emotional moment? This is a bad thing?

I'd say, give them a chance - they shouldn't have much of one, if you're showing a big powerful monster rather than overhyping just another on-CR baddie, but they'll have some potential way of doing it. If they somehow manage to save the NPC, then yes you have extra work, but that's as much opportunity as it is a problem. Maybe the monster bites off an arm as the PC hauls the would-be snack away, leaving the formerly proud knight without a way to lift a sword. Maybe it's the PC who is grievously wounded, and the moment becomes a "remember that guy and how he saved [NPC] from that monster? Almost killed him, but he did it! That was so cool" type story.

And, unless you have everything rigidly planned out in advance, the NPC's survival should be usable in some way. In my opinion, it's better to work someone the players like further into the plot, rather than throw them out entirely. It's not like you can't just change things in the future, to allow for their choice to have more impact. The NPC may be a nobody now, but it could be that their word for the true heroism of PC X comes up in a helpful way later.

I'll also add that, to me, people getting invested in what I'm running and feeling attached to things in the game is great. It's absolutely worth the extra work when it happens. If you're not as into that, or if your time is seriously constrained such that time spent developing NPC-X is time spent not planning out party-wide encounters, then it might not be for you, and what I'm saying here won't be that relevant.

Every true choice the PCs are allowed to make is a heap of extra work for a GM to do. The artistry of designing a campaign is not in allowing the players to do whatever they want; it's in giving them the impression that they're the ones calling all the shots when there's really only a few options available. You can't run the entire world, only parts of it and limiting choice is the only way to achieve this. Limiting choice looks bad (railroads are no fun), so to make up for this a good GM gives the illusion of choice.

I would say that, as a good GM, instead of using deceit to cover up an unwillingness or inability to create more than a certain amount of content, you give players actual choices, placed at the right time, and then prepare based on those. You don't need to prepare equally in-depth and dramatic events for all three ways to cross the mountains if you ask the players which way they want to go when they reach it, and then prepare for whichever route they pick. You can avoid doing excessive amounts of work and make your players' choices relevant.

But I think there's a fundamental difference on how we're thinking of these things. To me, preparing an entire campaign ahead of time is ridiculous for exactly this sort of reason - I either find myself having to railroad, railroad but lie about it, put in absurd amounts of prepwork for everything, or just leave half the campaign blank in order to account for player action. So I just...don't. Beyond things like the opening scenario, main antagonists, general plot points ("the Ancient Weapons of Destruction are awakening once more", "the Order of the Fist wants to retrieve the Ancient Weapons by any means necessary", "the party will need AWoD-tier power to kill the main enemy") and vague plans, I don't have a ton planned before we start playing. I prepare one to three sessions in advance for real-time games, or prepare more extensive frameworks for PbP games, which are far more flexible in terms of allowing changes due to unexpected player action, in my experience.

[Darth Ultron]

-As a rule of thumb, if you are entering a session with a fixed outcome in your mind as the DM, that's not very good DMing.

This is a good example of the Illusion players think about the game. The Real Truth is: The DM can do, or ''fix'' anything and the players will never be able to tell and never know, unless the DM tells them.

Yet many players just think the ''game happens'' somehow.

No. The player never have any real form of freedom, that is the most basic illusion of them all.
Either they interact with what has been prepared beforehand (NPC, locations, plots), or they have to rely on the GM making things up along the way with them hopefully not noticing that. And yes, people who prefer improv-style rarely notice that this even has less agency, because the choices didn't have meaning in the first place).

Yes, this so much.

The biggest Illusion is that the players, somehow, think they have total freedom and control and anything else they want to think they have. Many players even seem to think the 'game' itself ''comes alive'' somehow or something even stranger.

[RazorChain]

Where do you draw the line? How do you make sure the players will appreciate what you did rather than feel betrayed by the deception you planned? When is it a stage magician and when is it treachery?

If it depends on the Players, like so much does, then how do you find out from them without being able to ask them? Or do you draw the line before deception at that level?

I already mentioned that illusionism is considered a dysfunctional style and many people react strongly to it.

That being said there are a lot of people who use many techniques that "belong" in illusionism. Most railroading GM's are failed illusionists. They don't have mastery over the style.

They don't usually tell you upfront that they're going to railroad you so hard that you go "choo choo".

So when the illusion fails the GM becomes a railroading GM and players who don't like railroading become unhappy. These techniques help the GM to railroad his players without their knowledge and keep them happy. Ignorance is bliss and everybody wins

[RazorChain]

I mean...the way you've described it, why not just write a chapter of a book once a week and forward it to the "players" ? You've removed player agency for any significant decision. Players are there to make a story with you. Barring a very specific group that just wants to be told a story for 4 hours a week, this is not what they've signed up for. This is -actually- some of the worst GMing advice I've ever seen.

Because writing a book is different, your "players" will pat you on the shoulder and tell you that you're doing great but you know they don't read your crummy novel. Books brought us kenders so we all wish that Tracy Hickman and Margaret Weiss should just have stuck to roleplaying. Let's not even discuss Elminster or Drizzt novels either.

An illusionist GM is an entertainer not an author

[PhoenixPhyre]

So when the illusion fails the GM becomes a railroading GM and players who don't like railroading become unhappy. These techniques help the GM to railroad his players without their knowledge and keep them happy. Ignorance is bliss and everybody wins

Illusionism (as you've described it) is railroading. And it's a sneaky form of railroading that has huge negative consequences if discovered. If a DM says "I'm not railroading" but then uses illusionism to railroad and I catch them, they've lost my trust and I would have to leave the table. If they're honest about it ("There's an event I have planned, you'll really like it. But to get there you have to ..."), I can handle that and even enjoy it. Lying to players (as DM, not as NPC) is not OK.

The only place I see for these techniques is in softening/hiding already agreed-upon rails. This is (for example) what should happen when you're running an adventure path. Everyone knows there are rails and a plot in place, and everyone's accepted those. But they can be softened so that there's in-universe, rational reasons why those characters should follow the rails of their own free will.

[Max_Killjoy]

So how do you go about it? How do we tell that awesome story or follow that script when the protagonists have a mind of their own?

You don't.

If the GM is there to tell a predetermined story or force adherence to a script, then they should go write a novel or screenplay.

Because writing a book is different, your "players" will pat you on the shoulder and tell you that you're doing great but you know they don't read your crummy novel. Books brought us kenders so we all wish that Tracy Hickman and Margaret Weiss should just have stuck to roleplaying. Let's not even discuss Elminster or Drizzt novels either.

An illusionist GM is an entertainer not an author

Unrelated axes (as in plural of axis).

If the GM is an incompetent or frustrated novelist, the solution is not for them to impose their stories on a group of players who are there for an RPG campaign, not for story time with GM.

The illusionist GM is neither entertainer nor author, they're just a liar, a con-artist playing a shell-game.

[Max_Killjoy]

No. The player never have any real form of freedom, that is the most basic illusion of them all.
Either they interact with what has been prepared beforehand (NPC, locations, plots), or they have to rely on the GM making things up along the way with them hopefully not noticing that. And yes, people who prefer improv-style rarely notice that this even has less agency, because the choices didn't have meaning in the first place).

Neither of these, or any blend or middle ground, inherently negates player freedom or agency.

Unless of course you're just using some definition of "meaning" that's nothing more than a goofy term-of-art or navel-gazing philosophical term.

If the secondary reality ("the world") and the NPCs react differently depending on the PC's actions, statements, decisions, etc, then the PC's choices have meaning within the context of the campaign.

[Cluedrew]

Illusionism is the art of impacting character decisions or just outright negating them for the benefit of telling the story the GM wants to tell.

What of the story the other players want to tell?

This is not single author fiction, no one is here to tell a story. We are here to tell a story. And if any person could be removed and the story remain unchanged you are doing it wrong. OK, sit back and watch the GM is a valid play style, but to me it will always be a lesser one compared to the collaborative experience. The best stories in any role-playing game I have seen were shaped by everyone around the table and went beyond what everyone, even the GM, expected.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I honestly can't tell if this is satire or not.

Just in case it's not, stop right there, criminal scum. This is bad. You're bad. And you should feel bad.

[ImNotTrevor]

Dear lord go write a novel or make a videogame.

They'll do this better than you will. And do. Often.

TRPGs have exactly one advantage over novels and games:
The player has a much broader ability to choose, because the game is run by another human brain with full creative ability who can create new content on the fly.

Otherwise you're playing Skyrim or Final Fantasy but slower and with more math. Or you're doing a bookreading with extra steps.

Heck, this is why I stopped using D&D. The lighter systems actually manage to flex the strongest portions of the medium.

D&D is great for hexcrawls. Heck, that's how it used to work. Fixed map, varying party, no story. The only reason we got this story crap involved was to sell adventure modules. Which, ironically, cripples the system compared to where it shines. D&D as a hexcrawl is fun to GM. As a story you have to fret and stress.

[Scripten]

I honestly can't tell if this is satire or not.

Just in case it's not, stop right there, criminal scum. This is bad. You're bad. And you should feel bad.

It's not satire. It's dragging that dumpster fire from the Sandbox thread out into a new thread, because obviously we can't have just one.

If you are lying to and manipulating your players, then you are not doing a good job as a DM. There's a reason why lying and manipulation are considered poor form in interpersonal relations, and attempting to argue that they are necessary in TTRPGs is ridiculous. I've been DMing for years and I don't ever feel the need to lie to my players. I don't rig the dice nor do I give monsters extra HP after the battle begins, and the game is all the better for it. We have plenty of stories and the players not only feel like they've changed the world, but have.

[OldTrees1]

I already mentioned that illusionism is considered a dysfunctional style and many people react strongly to it.

That being said there are a lot of people who use many techniques that "belong" in illusionism. Most railroading GM's are failed illusionists. They don't have mastery over the style.

They don't usually tell you upfront that they're going to railroad you so hard that you go "choo choo".

So when the illusion fails the GM becomes a railroading GM and players who don't like railroading become unhappy. These techniques help the GM to railroad his players without their knowledge and keep them happy. Ignorance is bliss and everybody wins

Just to make sure:
So you mentioned that others will draw the line way before you will and you draw the line at "Illusionism isn't wrong unless you get caught". Is this a fair summary of your position?

Does that extend to lying to your players (actively or by omission) if they ask or otherwise care about if you use Illusionism?

At what point are you honest so that people can figure out if they want to play with you or not?

I ask because I hate this technique you describe* and you can tell, due to this honest communication, that I would hate your game. Thus you know that some players would hate your game. How do you avoid subjecting those players to your game? Or are the concerns of the players not relevant to your evaluation?

*Hence why my constructive criticism is focusing on whether you can have this be self selecting so that it coordinates DMs that use it with Players that are okay with it.

[Segev]

The Real Truth is: The DM can do, or ''fix'' anything and the players will never be able to tell and never know, unless the DM tells them.

The fact that you actually think players will never know says a lot about the kinds of players you choose to play with. Or your own inability to read your players.

[Pleh]

Because writing a book is different, your "players" will pat you on the shoulder and tell you that you're doing great but you know they don't read your crummy novel. Books brought us kenders so we all wish that Tracy Hickman and Margaret Weiss should just have stuck to roleplaying. Let's not even discuss Elminster or Drizzt novels either.

An illusionist GM is an entertainer not an author

False dichotomy. Authors ARE Entertainers. The only exception is for books that were never meant to be read by others (at which point the writer isn't so much an Author in the same sense as much as they are a biographer or record keeper just taking personal notes).

If they didn't want to read your crummy novel, you shouldn't try to spoon feed it to them through a false game experience. Games are inherently all about the player, their skill and their choices. When you falsify such things in the game, it is no longer a game (not from their end, at least) but a semi-interactive "cut scene".

Now, Tell Tale games does a fantastic job making deeply engaging, semi-interactive novels. They can be very entertaining. But to call them Video Games is almost a misnomer, because besides a few Quick Time Events, they only really qualify as "video games" because of the platform through which they are conveyed. "Interactive novel" would probably be a better description for them.

Now, because of the narrative elements common to RPGs, Interactive, Semi-Interactive, and Non-Interactive Cut Scenes are occasionally acceptable to tie segments of Gameplay together in a Narrative thread (or, with your example of leaping onto a dragon to slay the beast, sometimes a way to end a battle more climatically).

But it is still ethically deplorable to falsely advertise even if the deception is never discovered. If the game you want to run has particular events you intend to assert into the story regardless the player choices, they should have some kind of awareness of your intent.

Going back to the idea that we do not despise Magicians for tricking us with Illusions, that's because we accept the premise from the start. At no point do we expect the Magician to be compelled to explain how they managed to perform their illusions or to allow us to derail their show by demanding they step aside and allow the stage to begin playing a different act. We accept the premise that the illusionism IS the entertainment we are seeking.

Because RPGs lie on a spectrum of Player Agency, it is vitally important that the players (including the GM) have a mutual (and accurate) understanding of what degree of player agency is expected in the game.

In the Civilization Games, the players have no choice but to play the part of a growing civilization expanding and seeking dominance through an evolving global history arc, BUT they do have nearly limitless degree of choices in how they pursue this objective.

In Minecraft, there is no instruction as to how to play, you are just dropped into the world and are expected to explore. The only limitations are on what does or doesn't exist and what powers Steve? does or doesn't have.

In Dark Souls, you never HAVE to face the final boss. You can grind through the respawning mooks endlessly as you like. There's just not much else to do on the predefined map other than grind for power or progress towards the end.

As long as the players are given the opportunity to agree to invest in the amount of agency they will receive, there is no problem with illusionism (and, in fact, it can be quite an entertaining experience).

But in any game where the players are allowed to create their own protagonists, GMs should be wary of making that character moot. The very idea that the player has been given Self-Determination implies a fairly high degree of retaining that degree of Self Determination in the future.

"I chose my character to have this powerful, special sword, so I should be able to use it."

It becomes compulsive for the GM to plan their story and its progressive encounters with the expectation that in any scenario, the player might want to play their "Special Sword" card to adjust the flow of the narrative. If you just gloss over it and either negate the sword's potential influence or trivialize its influence, then why were they given the sword to begin with? If it's just to give them the sense that they have agency without actually giving it, that is false advertising and you should simply not have allowed them to have it to begin with. "But then they might not have played my game!" Then make a better game that they might actually prefer to play. Maybe one where they can have and use special swords that can have meaningful impact on the progression of the game.

[FireJustice]

I will try to summarize it:

a) Draft the story before hand and force its course through the players. As long they dont suspect it, it will be co.
my comment: This style of play can work it, as a "theme park" approach, the ride is fixed, and everybody is confortable with it, and the DM / narrator is competent enough, okay.
Its the text book way to do it in conventions, or one-shots, etc.
I think its boring as hell. Best chats are when things go off the rails, when the narrator has to discard much work to accomodate a new direction.

b) Agency is nothing, things that need to happen will happen.
my comment: this is my biggest peeve one. I hate failing forward, i hate the illusion of risk - as theres no risk at all. why bother at all?
I mean, its ok to recycle encounters, really ok. You don't need totally diferent battlestats planed for two entire diferent chains, its efficient to do it.
But the rest, sorry, i disagree

c) Give pity benefits.
My comment: Oh boy. Yeah, We all love when the reality bend for dramatic purposes. It's called consolation prize.
Its okay timmy, you didnt score a point, but you still get a gold star.
After all, failure isnt an option (except when the plot say so... right, #b?)

[Max_Killjoy]

I will try to summarize it:

a) Draft the story before hand and force its course through the players. As long they dont suspect it, it will be co.
my comment: This style of play can work it, as a "theme park" approach, the ride is fixed, and everybody is confortable with it, and the DM / narrator is competent enough, okay.
Its the text book way to do it in conventions, or one-shots, etc.
I think its boring as hell. Best chats are when things go off the rails, when the narrator has to discard much work to accomodate a new direction.

b) Agency is nothing, things that need to happen will happen.
my comment: this is my biggest peeve one. I hate failing forward, i hate the illusion of risk - as theres no risk at all. why bother at all?
I mean, its ok to recycle encounters, really ok. You don't need totally diferent battlestats planed for two entire diferent chains, its efficient to do it.
But the rest, sorry, i disagree

c) Give pity benefits.
My comment: Oh boy. Yeah, We all love when the reality bend for dramatic purposes. It's called consolation prize.
Its okay timmy, you didnt score a point, but you still get a gold star.
After all, failure isnt an option (except when the plot say so... right, #b?)

Indeed, bending the fictional reality for dramatic purposes or "because the story needs it to happen" is bad writing, and it's bad GMing.

"The things that need to happen will happen" is a reflection of someone won't be able to write a good book, or run a good game.

[RFLS]

Because writing a book is different, your "players" will pat you on the shoulder and tell you that you're doing great but you know they don't read your crummy novel. Books brought us kenders so we all wish that Tracy Hickman and Margaret Weiss should just have stuck to roleplaying. Let's not even discuss Elminster or Drizzt novels either.

An illusionist GM is an entertainer not an author

So, you're in this to tell a story and receive praise instead of trying to do what the books tell you and your players the game is about? That's...really self centered.

[kyoryu]

Here's how this thread is going to go:

1) Some subset of the people, who are illusionist GMs, will say "wow, that's amazing, you're so right."

2) The other people, who believe that illusionism is just a bad idea, will say so.

3) Nobody's mind will change.

[RazorChain]

Here's how this thread is going to go:

1) Some subset of the people, who are illusionist GMs, will say "wow, that's amazing, you're so right."

2) The other people, who believe that illusionism is just a bad idea, will say so.

3) Nobody's mind will change.

Sounds like the usual debating thread to me. Some thread go pages after pages just convincing one forum members of the error of his/her ways.

[flond]

Seriously though why not just be upfront about this. You don't need to call out every statement, just tell the players in the pitch that this game is about a specific story you have in mind and you'll bend the rules to make it happen.

That doesn't even sound that bad. Whereas "I've been lying to you so I can feel clever." Is a pretty bad look.

[kyoryu]

Seriously though why not just be upfront about this. You don't need to call out every statement, just tell the players in the pitch that this game is about a specific story you have in mind and you'll bend the rules to make it happen.

That doesn't even sound that bad. Whereas "I've been lying to you so I can feel clever." Is a pretty bad look.

Exactly. As someone strongly against illusionism, I might even agree to a game - if you tell me that's what you're doing. That's fine. It gives me the option to join the game or not.

The problem with, well, let's call it "hard illusionism", where you're not divulging that you're using illusionism and claim that you are maintaining the integrity of player choice, is that it removes my ability to decide if that's a game I want to be involved in. That's the issue.

[RazorChain]

Illusionism (as you've described it) is railroading. And it's a sneaky form of railroading that has huge negative consequences if discovered. If a DM says "I'm not railroading" but then uses illusionism to railroad and I catch them, they've lost my trust and I would have to leave the table. If they're honest about it ("There's an event I have planned, you'll really like it. But to get there you have to ..."), I can handle that and even enjoy it. Lying to players (as DM, not as NPC) is not OK.

The only place I see for these techniques is in softening/hiding already agreed-upon rails. This is (for example) what should happen when you're running an adventure path. Everyone knows there are rails and a plot in place, and everyone's accepted those. But they can be softened so that there's in-universe, rational reasons why those characters should follow the rails of their own free will.

Yes, I know. The style is all about hiding your railroading in a deceptive manner. You see when you sit at the table with a GM the social contract is usually never written and often never brought up. Players don't usually query the GM about his style or his GMing techniques. Often things go like this "I'm running a Pahtfinder game, who's with me?" and then a group gets form or it's a friend and you join a game. Like I've said earlier your average GM isn't going to tell you upfront that "he's going to railroad you so hard that you go choo choo". Most players find out that the GM railroads them after they have started playing with them and many GM's that railroad try to hide it. So the negative consequences of finding out that the GM railroads is that the players are aware of it and will brand him as a railroading GM. Very rarely will anyone confront a GM and ask him "Are you railroading us?" During play it is also also unheard of IME that a GM asks for an permission run an event they have planned, if it happens it's usually like this"I'm going to run the ruins of Myth Drannor next sessions" but usually the GM will just try to net or hook the PC's so they go to Myth Drannor.

Just to make sure:
So you mentioned that others will draw the line way before you will and you draw the line at "Illusionism isn't wrong unless you get caught". Is this a fair summary of your position?

Does that extend to lying to your players (actively or by omission) if they ask or otherwise care about if you use Illusionism?

At what point are you honest so that people can figure out if they want to play with you or not?

I ask because I hate this technique you describe* and you can tell, due to this honest communication, that I would hate your game. Thus you know that some players would hate your game. How do you avoid subjecting those players to your game? Or are the concerns of the players not relevant to your evaluation?

*Hence why my constructive criticism is focusing on whether you can have this be self selecting so that it coordinates DMs that use it with Players that are okay with it.

I'm not taking any moral stand here, and if I do it will probably be for the sake of the argument. I merely presenting a GMing style that is well known, at least in certain circles.

When I've used illusionism I never got asked but the question that would have arisen might have been if I was railroading the players. I ran the same "Illusionst" adventure for 2 groups, one of veteran gamers and one group of new beginners and after talking to the groups as we usually discuss gaming, nobody seemed to be the wiser. But again my GMing style isn't often discussed and I don't let the players get behind the curtain. I'm pretty upfront about that I'm a dirty GM and I'll use every trick in the book if it helps with immersion and fun, my players know this but won't know what trick I'm using when and most don't have a clue as they only show up to have fun.