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

[Cluedrew]

I hate failing forward, i hate the illusion of risk

OK, are these to separate dislikes? You seem to be connecting the two but in my mind they are very different. Short explanation: fail forward just makes something (instead of nothing) happen when you don't succeed. This something can be as bad or worse as whatever is concocted* to fill that empty space created by "nothing happens". Actually I know Powered by the Apocalypse are sometimes accused of being to harsh on their fail forward outcomes.

That is all I will say for now, but I could go on.

* In some cases it flows quite naturally, in others they gave up and created "re-try until success" mechanics.

[RazorChain]

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.

I know how to improvise, I've run improvised games for decades. Once I ran an improvised campaign that lasted for 2 years.

Improvisation helps a GM to be better at Illusionism as he is better equipped to deal with unforseen actions on the part of the PC's and negating or impacting their choices competently.

[CharonsHelper]

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.

That's pretty much what happens when a table sits down to play through an Adventure Path. Which works fine - because everyone at the table buys into that going in and knows what's going on.

And APs can be fun to play & run, but I don't want the GM to try to pretend that they're not running an AP when they are.

[RazorChain]

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.

Not really this is just you trying to attack me instead of what I've put forth. That's called ad hominem. This discussion isn't about me as a GM as for all you know I'm just trolling everybody for the sake of debate.

But I ain't. I'm presenting a GMing style that wasn't invented yesterday and you might discuss the morality of using that style and it's techniques or if it's valid in your opinion.

[Red Fel]

But I ain't. I'm presenting a GMing style that wasn't invented yesterday and you might discuss the morality of using that style and it's techniques or if it's valid in your opinion.

But you're not. Well, you are and you aren't.

You are describing a storytelling style, in which you present a story to the players and they metaphorically press B to continue. And that's a legitimate style, it wasn't invented yesterday, and if your players signed on for that, it's fine in my book.

But you're also describing your motivation, which is basically to have the players pat you on the back for being so clever and creative. You've said as much. And that's problematic.

Here's the thing. If you at least still view it as participatory storytelling, you're playing a game. That's what a game is. If you're sharing the story, and the players get to immerse themselves in your world, that's a good thing.

But from what you say - well, let me use your quote.

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.

First off, if your novel is bad, then forcing your players to sit through a reading of that novel won't make it better. But more importantly, what you're describing isn't about a shared experience - it's about exposing the players to your work, and forcing them to endure it. As you've described it, if you just gave it to them in written form, they won't sit through it, so better to put them in chairs and make them sit through it.

And that's a problem, because that's not a game. It's more like theater, in that one is performing while the rest silently spectate, but it's theater that you've tricked them into attending. "I thought we were going to mini-golf," your players say, while you laugh and announce, "Nope, I'll be performing my rendition of Wagner's Niebelungenlied."

That's not a game. It's a trick. And it's a mean trick.

[kyoryu]

OK, are these to separate dislikes? You seem to be connecting the two but in my mind they are very different. Short explanation: fail forward just makes something (instead of nothing) happen when you don't succeed. This something can be as bad or worse as whatever is concocted* to fill that empty space created by "nothing happens". Actually I know Powered by the Apocalypse are sometimes accused of being to harsh on their fail forward outcomes.

That is all I will say for now, but I could go on.

* In some cases it flows quite naturally, in others they gave up and created "re-try until success" mechanics.

Yup. While some people interpret "fail forward" as "success or success with a cost, always", it really only has to mean "the situation changes in some way afterwards." The situation getting worse is totally cromulent.

Success at a cost (fail forward): "Okay, you failed your roll, so you were able to pick the lock, but broke your picks in the process."
Worse situation (fail forward): "Okay, you failed your roll. This lock is tricky! While you're picking it, some guards wander by..."
Not Fail Forward: "You failed your roll. The lock is still locked. Try again?"

[Max_Killjoy]

Yup. While some people interpret "fail forward" as "success or success with a cost, always", it really only has to mean "the situation changes in some way afterwards." The situation getting worse is totally cromulent.

Success at a cost (fail forward): "Okay, you failed your roll, so you were able to pick the lock, but broke your picks in the process."
Worse situation (fail forward): "Okay, you failed your roll. This lock is tricky! While you're picking it, some guards wander by..."
Not Fail Forward: "You failed your roll. The lock is still locked. Try again?"

So at least as presented here, it's that events continue to progress and things continue to happen... not that the PCs goals or a particular story "move forward" no matter what?

[PhoenixPhyre]

So at least as presented here, it's that events continue to progress and things continue to happen... not that the PCs goals or a particular story "move forward" no matter what?

Basically, yeah. It's trying to avoid that "you failed. I try again. You failed. I try again." loop that's so boring. Each check, either on a success or a failure, should change the situation in some way (big or small). If it doesn't, don't roll.

[RazorChain]

But you're not. Well, you are and you aren't.

You are describing a storytelling style, in which you present a story to the players and they metaphorically press B to continue. And that's a legitimate style, it wasn't invented yesterday, and if your players signed on for that, it's fine in my book.

But you're also describing your motivation, which is basically to have the players pat you on the back for being so clever and creative. You've said as much. And that's problematic.

Here's the thing. If you at least still view it as participatory storytelling, you're playing a game. That's what a game is. If you're sharing the story, and the players get to immerse themselves in your world, that's a good thing.

Illusionism is still gaming or participatory storytelling. I'm not describing my motivation, I'm selling you why the style is awesome. It's a sales pitch. If you have better selling points then you can divulge them to the rest of us?

I describe that you can't pull off illusionism all the time, there is no perfect illusionism. There is room for choice because the GM isnt interested in the outcome of all choices unless he's a total control freak. Also giving some room for choices reinforces the illusion of that there is choice and that the players have agency.

First off, if your novel is bad, then forcing your players to sit through a reading of that novel won't make it better. But more importantly, what you're describing isn't about a shared experience - it's about exposing the players to your work, and forcing them to endure it. As you've described it, if you just gave it to them in written form, they won't sit through it, so better to put them in chairs and make them sit through it.

And that's a problem, because that's not a game. It's more like theater, in that one is performing while the rest silently spectate, but it's theater that you've tricked them into attending. "I thought we were going to mini-golf," your players say, while you laugh and announce, "Nope, I'll be performing my rendition of Wagner's Niebelungenlied."

That's not a game. It's a trick. And it's a mean trick.

It's just me being snarky about the same old argument about railroading = write a book. Most people know that gaming and writing a book are totally different things even when railroading is involved. Writing a book isnt a social activity and I don't go telling people who play diceless narrative games or Once upon a time to write a book instead.

[Darth Ultron]

What of the story the other players want to tell?

Each player tells the small story of their character, with in the larger game story.

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.

Most players are clueless. After all, they want to be players because they are clueless.

Stage Magic gives three great examples of Illusionism:

1.The Clueless. They think the stage magic is real. Of course, the clueless person also will think a great many things are real like karma or fate or destiny are also real.

2.The Willing. They know the stage magic is fake and a trick, but they don't care: they want to be entertained and amazed. So they don't think about it, and let the magic ''wow'' them.

3.The Aware. They know it's a fake trick, and can't see anything except the act. They might get a bit of wonder about how the trick is done, but the trick itself does not 'wow' them at all.

And you see it with players:

1.Somehow the amazing game just happens.
2.They accept and know the DM is making the amazing game happen, and let it happen as they want to be entertained and amazed.
3.They know everything in the game play is fake and made by the DM, and can't see anything except the act. They might get a bit of wonder about how the DM does things, but the gameplay itself is obvious..

I'd point out that it's impossible to have a TRPG without Illusionism unless your doing the Group Storytelling Activity where each person can just say ''and then'' and alter anything on a whim or your doing it ''board game style'', where the players know utterly everything about the game, and then just play out what they know.

And Illusionism is not overly about ''tricking'' or ''fooling'' the players as they will mostly do that themselves. Illusionism is just about making a fun and exciting game.

And it's not about ''hiding'' Railroading. I'm a hard core Railroading DM, and if you talk to me for more then a minute or so I will flat out tell you my game is a RAILROAD. So there is not hiding, no tricks...the 8000 pound railroad is right in front of you.

[Cluedrew]

Now I want to start "Nothing Doesn't Happen" a thread on failing forward.

So at least as presented here, it's that events continue to progress and things continue to happen... not that the PCs goals or a particular story "move forward" no matter what?

One subtlety I think PhoenixPhyre missed: cut out the particular. The best* fail forward system will push thing along a different path on a success or failure. However all outcomes should push things along. It might be towards or away from where the PCs want to go, but it will not be the where they were**. I once messed up a travel roll that resulted in an ex showing up and trying to kill me. It made sense in context, trust me. I am not given the context, or p/c divide, for humor.

* the ones I have most enjoyed, so best for me.
** physical location might stay the same of course.

[kyoryu]

So at least as presented here, it's that events continue to progress and things continue to happen... not that the PCs goals or a particular story "move forward" no matter what?

Exactly.

It's a common misconception, to be honest. I think it comes from the conflation of "story"-based games (railroading, DragonLance/Adventure Path style) with "storygames" (which explicitly avoid railroading).

Forward just means "things change, the situation evolves". It doesn't mean "the preplanned story continues according to plan."

(Again, to be clear, there's probably some people that *do* mean that, but it's not the general usage).

Another way of thinking about it is: If there's a chance that the players can succeed, given infinite time and resources, they do succeed. So figure out why they don't have infinite time/resources, and then roll to see if that occurs before they succeed. If you're looking for evidence in a room, you *will* find it, eventually... so what's the other pressure that stops you from just doing that forever? And if there's none, just say "cool, you succeed" and get on with it.

[Segev]

Most players are clueless. After all, they want to be players because they are clueless.

The sheer condescending, disdainful arrogance of this statement is astounding.

[Max_Killjoy]

The sheer condescending, disdainful arrogance of this statement is astounding.

It's dead wrong an objective claim -- but it's also a statement anyone reading anything else DU ever says about gaming should keep in mind. It's critical context for everything else he asserts.

[RazorChain]

The sheer condescending, disdainful arrogance of this statement is astounding.

Arrogant but true. Majority of players never take to the GM's chair and or don't involve themselves heavily. Many can barely bother to read a couple of pages of campaign documents and many will just skim the rules, others will never read them.

They will complain when they feel that the GM is unfairly blocking their choices but else they won't care much or give GM's techniques much thought. If they have fun and get pizza they'll care even less

[Max_Killjoy]

Arrogant but true. Majority of players never take to the GM's chair and or don't involve themselves heavily. Many can barely bother to read a couple of pages of campaign documents and many will just skim the rules, others will never read them.

They will complain when they feel that the GM is unfairly blocking their choices but else they won't care much or give GM's techniques much thought. If they have fun and get pizza they'll care even less

My typical gaming table has been about 50% players who also had and/or would go to have GMing experience. And a good fraction of those who did not, could have quite competently.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Arrogant but true. Majority of players never take to the GM's chair and or don't involve themselves heavily. Many can barely bother to read a couple of pages of campaign documents and many will just skim the rules, others will never read them.

They will complain when they feel that the GM is unfairly blocking their choices but else they won't care much or give GM's techniques much thought. If they have fun and get pizza they'll care even less

And this explains why you feel justified in treating them like dirt. Or maybe the act like that (taking you at your word) because they know that nothing they know or do will matter because their every action is fated in advance.

[Max_Killjoy]

And this explains why you feel justified in treating them like dirt. Or maybe the act like that (taking you at your word) because they know that nothing they know or do will matter because their every action is fated in advance.

"Eat, drink, and be goofy, because nothing we do actually matters."

[PhoenixPhyre]

"Eat, drink, and be goofy, because nothing we do actually matters."

Yeah. It's a great way to ruin impressionable young (in play time) players.

[RazorChain]

My typical gaming table has been about 50% players who also had and/or would go to have GMing experience. And a good fraction of those who did not, could have quite competently.

I guess this depends on personal experience. The best gaming groups I have played with are with people who heavily immerse themselves in the hobby.

I have also run games at conventions, schools, youth clubs and gaming stores both open and closed games. I have been involved with many groups through over three decades of playing in 2 countries and IME involvement varies just like in other hobbies. Some people like to play chess regularly but don't give it much thought outside of playing

[kyoryu]

"Eat, drink, and be goofy, because nothing we do actually matters."

Had a player in a group who I had been warned (by another GM) was likely to go off the rails and do ever more crazy things.

The first time he started to do that, actual, game-altering consequences happened (not in a jerk GM way, just natural for what he did). He didn't push the boundaries after that.

I'm fairly convinced that his behavior, consciously or not, was a way of finding what it took to *actually* have an impact on things.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I guess this depends on personal experience. The best gaming groups I have played with are with people who heavily immerse themselves in the hobby.

I have also run games at conventions, schools, youth clubs and gaming stores both open and closed games. I have been involved with many groups through over three decades of playing in 2 countries and IME involvement varies just like in other hobbies. Some people like to play chess regularly but don't give it much thought outside of playing

And in my experience the players most personally invested are the new ones who haven't gotten jaded, burnt by DMs who treat them poorly, or just bored with the whole thing yet. I have two groups of teenagers who take things seriously, including taking "throw-away" comments (designed to set the stage) and run with them, leading to entirely new things I had never considered. Just yesterday I had a pair of boys decide to try to negotiate with a particular undead, showing that they payed attention to what they had learned about the city they were in and the source of the undead. As a result, they won themselves some allies much easier than I had planned and avoided a nasty fight. I had another group take a plot hook that wasn't really there (at least not intentionally) and run with it, fleshing out the world much more than I could have ever planned. And none of them have really ever played before.

Old players often lose that sense of wonder, that ability to immerse yourself in a fantastic world. They've seen it all, and demand new and more outre delights to sate their jaded palates or run wild, taking perverse pleasure in destroying settings and ruining any plot that might happen to be percolating. But that's just my experience.

Had a player in a group who I had been warned (by another GM) was likely to go off the rails and do ever more crazy things.

The first time he started to do that, actual, game-altering consequences happened (not in a jerk GM way, just natural for what he did). He didn't push the boundaries after that.

I'm fairly convinced that his behavior, consciously or not, was a way of finding what it took to *actually* have an impact on things.

I see that exact behavior from teenagers all the time. They push and push, looking for hard boundaries. Once they get good, firm push back in a way that makes sense, they stop. Arbitrary punishments or scoldings do nothing.

[RazorChain]

And this explains why you feel justified in treating them like dirt. Or maybe the act like that (taking you at your word) because they know that nothing they know or do will matter because their every action is fated in advance.

Who has ever said I treated anyone like dirt or that I feel justified doing so?

I'm merely pointing out that lot of players never GM and therefore never learn the skill set. Many think it requires some gift or ability that they lack.

When players don't involve themselves heavily in the hobby then they lack the knowledge to see through or understand the techniques a GM uses.

I like to play pool and will play couple of times per month with a friend. I consider myself a decent player but outside of those times I play I don' practice, read about or watch Pool.
A professional pool player is going to win against me probably every single time we play.

[Max_Killjoy]

Who has ever said I treated anyone like dirt or that I feel justified doing so?

You did, this entire thread and back into the Sandbox thread. Starting with the assertion that it's OK to lie to your players. And as pointed out below, your consistent use of adversarial / zeros-sum analogies and metaphors.

If that's not been what you meant, you've been doing a surprisingly good job of making it sound like it's exactly what you meant.

[kyoryu]

I see that exact behavior from teenagers all the time. They push and push, looking for hard boundaries. Once they get good, firm push back in a way that makes sense, they stop. Arbitrary punishments or scoldings do nothing.

It felt less like "looking for boundaries" and more like "looking to have an impact that was clearly based on their actions."

As I said, once he saw the world actually *did* change based on his reactions, the behavior chilled out. It wasn't a "punishment". It was a natural consequence.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Who has ever said I treated anyone like dirt or that I feel justified doing so?

I'm merely pointing out that lot of players never GM and therefore never learn the skill set. Many think it requires some gift or ability that they lack.

When players don't involve themselves heavily in the hobby then they lack the knowledge to see through or understand the techniques a GM uses.

I like to play pool and will play couple of times per month with a friend. I consider myself a decent player but outside of those times I play I don' practice, read about or watch Pool.
A professional pool player is going to win against me probably every single time we play.

The bold part illustrates, to me, the root problem. You're treating this as a competition between the DM (to tell his story) and the players (to...not sure). All your metaphors are adversarial. All your discourse treats this as opposed sides. And that's not how RPGs are supposed to be. It's supposed to be a collaboration. Between players playing different parts. Not a pool game, not a wargame, but a symphony. The DM is not the player's opponent, he's the player's dance partner (to change the analogy). While they move differently, neither one is anything without the other. Both react to the other's movement, blending together into a harmonious flow that is exponentially more than the sum of its parts.

I've described a good session of DMing as "conducting an jazz orchestra where everyone has different ideas of where it should go and so everyone's improvising, while riding a roller-coaster. Sounds crazy, but is totally awesome when it works. And exhausting."

[PhoenixPhyre]

It felt less like "looking for boundaries" and more like "looking to have an impact that was clearly based on their actions."

As I said, once he saw the world actually *did* change based on his reactions, the behavior chilled out. It wasn't a "punishment". It was a natural consequence.

Right. I was contrasting "seeing that things are really logical and actually work as expected" to "arbitrary punishments", not saying they were the same. I was amplifying, not contradicting. Sorry for any confusion.

I knew a guy who had a dog that he had badly mistreated. He randomly (based on whim) punished and rewarded it, almost unconnected to what it did. As a result, it was functionally insane. So it did...things. Whatever it felt like. Players can get that way--if no matter what they do, everything just proceeds (or worse, they get random bolts from the blue or rewards at the DM's whim), they keep pushing and pushing. Might as well, after all, be hanged for a sheep as a lamb. When, instead, they face actual, rational consequences, they settle down.

[RazorChain]

You did, this entire thread and back into the Sandbox thread. Starting with the assertion that it's OK to lie to your players.

If that's not been what you meant, you've been doing a surprisingly good job of making it sound like it's exactly what you meant.

I am fully aware that Illusionism is a dysfunctional style, parternalistic at best and authoritarian at worst. Disregarding if I am morally bankrupt or not or merely afflicted by one of the dark triad of psychology I still maintain it is a valid style and it's techniques relevant to game mastering.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I am fully aware that Illusionism is a dysfunctional style, parternalistic at best and authoritarian at worst. Disregarding if I am morally bankrupt or not or merely afflicted by one of the dark triad of psychology I still maintain it is a valid style and it's techniques relevant to game mastering.

Dysfunctional =/= valid. In fact, those two are incompatible. You still haven't given any reasons beyond the players are morons and my story is that important why these are relevant. At best, they're relevant as examples of what not to do, techniques to ruin good players for DMs who are actually playing healthy games.

[ImNotTrevor]

So far the "sales pitch" has boiled down to:

"Illusionism: Because Players are Idiots!"

Which, since I play with grownups who have higher-level degrees in psychology (two of them) two salesmen who are really good at reading people, a mom, and a small handful of college students including a chemical engineer, strikes me as the worst possible way to sell me on a style ever.

Also, it's easier for me to just use a system that supports more open playstyles and then play like that because me and my players have more fun like that. I don't need to illusion anything at all, which is easier.

And when I want to tell a specific story?
I go write one and let people read it if they want.

Goodness. These threads as of late are reminding me why GitP has gone from one of my preferred forums to like... a tertiary visit at best. I'm rather done with explaining to people why being a toxic, deceptive A-hole to your players is bad. I spend my days explaining to children that punching someone in the face for telling you to shut up is bad. I don't want to go to a forum and explain similarly simple concepts.