Well, is it? Is it ever a legitimate tool for a GM to use, giving the PCs the idea that they're accomplishing more than they are, or that their options are more than they really are, or that they have more choices than they really do?

RPGPundit

Well, if you mean in the sense that the world is really less detailed than what they experience because the focus on their characters creates the illusion of depth, well, that's the heart of the whole roleplaying game experience.

If you mean in game illusions, well they can be over used but can also be an interesting plot device.

If you mean swinish DMing, well that's just unforgivable.

The easy answer is, yes.

Now, first, I want to get something out of the way. It's not "illusionism" if the GM is representing a false sense of success on the part of the character, which is false in the fiction as well. E.g. I could imagine a PC under the influence of drugs or magic. Or the PC might be being "set up" by a con. These aren't illusionism, and of course they'd be okay.

Now, the easy answer is that it's also okay if everyone's on board with it.

But it's not something I like, personally.

Nah, he means in the Forger sense,

"A family of Techniques in which a GM, usually in the interests of story creation, story creation, exerts Force over player-character decisions, in which he or she has authority over resolution-outcomes, and in which the players do not necessarily recognize these features."

So it's when you're railroading the players but pretending it's a proper game instead.

Is it ever "justified"? I dunno. I don't think it's even possible unless your players are all morons. Most players know when they're being railroaded, the only one being fooled by any "illusion" is the illusionist, the GM. "I totally let you do whatever you want... honest!"

You mean "railroading and bullshitting to make it look like their choice"?

*Shrug*

It's a social lie.  Occasionally, insignificant lies are just part of general social behaviour - "I'm not hungry" when someone cooks something that you think is gross, that kind of thing.

As with any other social lie, a little can be normal and smooth stuff over.  Doing so habitually, regularly, or about big things, makes the whole interaction into bullshit.

I use it a lot in my games, if I understand it correctly. If my players make good characters, and I introduce a villain that is going to do something horrible, I'm pretty much railroading them. I might write up a dungeon here or there, or make some optional side quests, but the game is going to be able the villain. If the players decide to ignore the villain, I might keep running the game in the wake of whatever he did, but that would just be stupid.

I think that a lot of players are overly sensitive to the act of railroading. They act like the GM should make an array of inconsequential dungeons and moderate villainy, and then let them pick whatever one is more interesting to them and their troupe of True Neutral / Anarchist / Self Serving player characters. It's boring to me. I don't like running it.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;273327You mean "railroading and bullshitting to make it look like their choice"?

*Shrug*

It's a social lie.  Occasionally, insignificant lies are just part of general social behaviour - "I'm not hungry" when someone cooks something that you think is gross, that kind of thing.

As with any other social lie, a little can be normal and smooth stuff over.  Doing so habitually, regularly, or about big things, makes the whole interaction into bullshit.

I agree with this.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;273327You mean "railroading and bullshitting to make it look like their choice"?

*Shrug*

It's a social lie.  Occasionally, insignificant lies are just part of general social behaviour - "I'm not hungry" when someone cooks something that you think is gross, that kind of thing.

As with any other social lie, a little can be normal and smooth stuff over.  Doing so habitually, regularly, or about big things, makes the whole interaction into bullshit.

This is why I think that illusionism is not so bad, as long as you use it sparingly. It becomes a problem when there is too much of it.

It depends.

If you are in a group in which there is only ever one person who GMs, I think Illusionism can work really well.

In my group, in which we are all fairly experienced GMs it doesn't work at all - once the players figure out that their choices and action don't really matter, it's all over.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;273325"A family of Techniques in which a GM, usually in the interests of story creation, story creation, exerts Force over player-character decisions, in which he or she has authority over resolution-outcomes, and in which the players do not necessarily recognize these features."

Example: The BBEG is in the middle of a ritual to summon a huge demon.  You have one action to disrupt him and stop the ritual.  The illusionism part of the is that no matter what you try, your action (and sometimes maybe even inaction) is going to interupt the ritual; the GM has already decided that.  You might light his robe on fire or you might just yell really loud.

If you knew that anything would work, it'd take the glory out of success.  The reason many forgers (and others) believe illusionism is better than railroading is that when you "do it right", the players do believe and still have that glorious feeling.  The problem, of course, is what happens if they ever do find out.  I find that it flips all of that over to the negative side of things.

I think illusionism is spawned from lack of system support.  The system doesn't tell you what would interupt a ritual or how good of an interupt lighting a robe on fire would be.  The GM is also at fault.  He's probably letting an NPC do something he has a vested interest in (for success or failure).

Quote from: KingSpoom;273356Example: The BBEG is in the middle of a ritual to summon a huge demon.  You have one action to disrupt him and stop the ritual.  The illusionism part of the is that no matter what you try, your action (and sometimes maybe even inaction) is going to interupt the ritual; the GM has already decided that.  You might light his robe on fire or you might just yell really loud.

If you knew that anything would work, it'd take the glory out of success.  The reason many forgers (and others) believe illusionism is better than railroading is that when you "do it right", the players do believe and still have that glorious feeling.  The problem, of course, is what happens if they ever do find out.  I find that it flips all of that over to the negative side of things.

I think illusionism is spawned from lack of system support.  The system doesn't tell you what would interupt a ritual or how good of an interupt lighting a robe on fire would be.  The GM is also at fault.  He's probably letting an NPC do something he has a vested interest in (for success or failure).

When I want to avoid the kind of thing you are talking about, I try to let the characters know what works, in character. So, for example, if I've decided that the party will get there in the last round, I need to know that they should know what will work.

I might have a game a few before that one where the party has to interrupt a ritual. Sense it isn't  big deal boss fight, I'll pretty much tell them what will work, usually based on a skill check. Sense 5-6 pcs are making the check, one of them is certain to pass it. I tell him, "shouting won't work, but lighting him on fire will." So he sets the guy on fire, problem solved.

Later in the story, they have to stop the BBEG. I won't tell them how to stop him at this point, and I might even suggest that he will have more powers of concentration than other wizards. Now, they should put together that they need to set him on fire + something, or use a lot of fire...

My players aren't stupid, so I can rest assured that they will figure it out. I've given them the answer, but if enough time has passed, it won't seem like I have. They get to figure something out, I get the ending I want, and everyone is happy.

I don't really use this technique.

As a GM if I don't like the result of a die roll, I say something along the lines of "That's dumb! Instead this happens."

As a GM there is no need to hide when you're forcing a result.

If you want to, to help maintain immersion or whatever...that's cool wih me as a player

Quote from: KrakaJak;273371As a GM if I don't like the result of a die roll, I say something along the lines of "That's dumb! Instead this happens."

Did you ever stop and ask yourself "Why am I rolling the die when something dumb could happen?" or does it only occur to you after you roll?  It's almost the same thing.  You'll roll the dice and they succeed, so they interupt the ritual.  If they fail, it's dumb, and they interupt the ritual.  The die roll is an illusion to cover the Drama resolution system you employ.

Well, I don't think there's anything wrong with plonking the same encounter (eg: you meet 3 ogres) in front of the PCs whether they went left or right, as long as the left-right decision was not meaningful - eg if the PCs go left because they know that ogres are to the right, I better have a darn good reason to hit them with the same ogre encounter either way.

Not if you mean discreetly railroading the players into sticking to your plot.  That's just lame.  It feels like molesting them in their sleep.  Then again that's why I like running zombie games.  I let the players do whatever the hell they damn well please and when the time seems right I bring out my dead.