Want to play D&D 5E? You can May 24th!

[Patmos]

Chrisg wrote: If I start using illusionism, then players can't rely on their own efforts to gather information about the setting, and can't make the best possible decisions. The local ruler might just seem to be a poncy elf with a flaming sword and a bodyguard of 10 elves. But if I'm using illusionism, no amount of investigating or clever ploys will uncover that he is a lich, because I decided that after the players committed to fighting him.

I am not sure i explained myself right or wrong but i feel your examples don't really come into conflict with mine.

I mean the players want to kill the king, I didn't have anything about the king planned so I let them, and come up with some interesting for the story, and then there are ramifications or plot that occurs because of the decisions you made.

The players want to learn more about the king, I have nothing planned about the king so I let the players search around and collect input in which they figure out something about the king, learning that knowledge does something interesting to the story, then there are ramifications or plot that occurs because of the decisions you made. Maybe its kill the king!

What if they discover that the king is a monster through story or through killing him doesn't matter I made the choice up on the spot both times, why would i make him a monster or not a monster is entirely based on whether or not it would make a more interesting story for my players. Do they know? if I am doing it right then they shouldn't care.

I am not trying to cheat people out of choice i am trying to entertain them.

As long as someone is controlling the story and arbitrating the rules there is no such thing as a true sand box.

[Seth]

I don't know if this falls under illusionism, or if illusionism falls under it. But I really dislike when games break causality.

Yea, me too. I tend to like games more where there's an objective truth (as represented by pre-prepared materials) which I discover and interact with, rather than a skinner box where my interaction defines reality --- I do like short, one session story games with loosy goosy mechanics, in the same way I like a good board game. But I like the immersion of the other style better. That's a LOT more work, though.

[Questionor]

I don't know if this falls under illusionism, or if illusionism falls under it. But I really dislike when games break causality.

Yea, me too. I tend to like games more where there's an objective truth (as represented by pre-prepared materials) which I discover and interact with, rather than a skinner box where my interaction defines reality

I don't mind when if something wasn't defined before because the GM/adventure writer hadn't imagined it coming up and the GM has to define what the objective truth is on the fly just so long as it's objective not dependent on totally unrelated factors especially ones that have the past depending on the future.

[chrisg]

@Patmos, I agree with what you've said here about the King. My point is that deciding on the spot that the King, who presumably the players have decided to kill for reasons unrelated to his being a monster--since he wasn't until they attacked him--may deprive them of agency. On the other hand, if the players have not decided on a course of action, and you decide that the King is a monster, that probably isn't Illusionism.

Someone who is better with this sort of jargon can probably explain better than I can. It's got to do with control. If you're making decisions that remove player agency in order to produce a particular outcome, that's Illusionism territory.

So when you talk about someone "controlling the story", that doesn't fit into my sandbox games. When I ran RBV, there isn't a story to control. My job is to simulate the world reacting predictably to the players' decisions. Any story is purely emergent*. On the negative side, this means there's a lot of stuff that happens that doesn't have highs and lows like a good story arc. But the big positive for me is that as a player, I get a tremendous sense of satisfaction out of going up against the setting and triumphing through my own efforts.

As a DM, I get a tremendous amount of enjoyment from the surprises that occur in game. In a game where I'm subtly directing events, the payoff is when everything goes according to my plan. That was something I enjoyed in the past, but lately I'm more into discovering the "story" in partnership with the players. It's largely a selfish choice, because it takes a lot of effort to force a storyline and eventually it burns me out, creatively.

It's not a big deal--it's just not for me. It's not a bad way to play by any means, I just don't like it. It's a venerable and respected DM tool.

* At least, that's the goal. I probably fall short from time to time.

[Deliverator]

If players poke their noses into something that the GM doesn't have any pre-written information on, it's fine to make something up on the fly, but then you've got to stick with it. Basic rule of improv: don't contradict anything that's already been established.

Matt

[Deliverator]

You know, after this conversation I really want to have t-shirts made to wear around at cons that just say, "Consult the Fiction." Maybe with a Vincent Baker Clouds and Boxes diagram as the graphic.

[chrisg]

Thanks for putting that up. I remember running across that diagram ages ago, but for whatever reason I couldn't get it--or it didn't speak to me or something.

Going back to it now I found it really illuminating. Vincent is brilliant.

[Deliverator]

Yay! Glad you liked. Clouds and Boxes really helped me understand the charge of "4E is not a real role-playing game." And also how my favorite parts of many of my favorite games worked by starting in the fiction. (And, again, it sounds like the 5E people at least sort of understand the importance of this as well.)

Matt

[Leftahead]

Clouds and Boxes really helped me understand the charge of "4E is not a real role-playing game."

It doesn't make the charge any less entirely subjective and self-fulfilling, though.

Vincent's a smart guy, and he make really interesting games, but there is actually more than one way to play RPGs, and if everyone at the table agrees they're having fun, then trying to argue them out of that because their fun doesn't fit the diagram seems uncharitable.

[Deliverator]

Clouds and Boxes really helped me understand the charge of "4E is not a real role-playing game."

It doesn't make the charge any less entirely subjective and self-fulfilling, though.

Vincent's a smart guy, and he make really interesting games, but there is actually more than one way to play RPGs, and if everyone at the table agrees they're having fun, then trying to argue them out of that because their fun doesn't fit the diagram seems uncharitable.

Well, the point is, 4E simply didn't feel "like an RPG" to a lot of players. The lack of fiction-referent rules is a good explanation for why.

I'm not dumping on people who like 4E, or trying to argue anyone who does like it out of that appreciation—I've enjoyed it a fair amount myself. But I also experienced that feeling of disconnect when playing and running it, and, again, C&B explains that sensation. I certainly don't think my feelings about the matter are self-fulfilling—I GM'd and played 4E entirely in good faith, as did many other people!

ETA: I think some wires were crossed here—it's important to note that the "4E's not a real RPG!" stuff I heard was mostly coming from long-time D&D players, not from the indie community.

Matt