Fantasy Trip Illusions

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Keysh

Then why can't they open (and close) doors?

I would tend to rationalize, because doors open to reveal the other side, and if the door is not really opened, the imagination of the people believing the illusion cannot provide the information of what is on the other side of the door. Also a door has a conspicuous open/closed state. Underbrush by comparison would just be imagined to part to make way for someone passing through, and springing back, revealing nothing and not changing state.

Originally Posted by Keysh

Where does one draw the line? (And part of my argument is that the RAW statement about "plants cannot be affected by illusions" -- because plants have IQ 0 or 1 -- implies "illusions cannot push plants aside".)

In most combat situations, it's unlikely someone would have the chance to notice things like that. More generally, I'd argue that "things giving away the illusion" is simply part of the limitations of illusions. They're not capable of being perfectly believable under all circumstances.

You could, I suppose, argue that that kind of "visual chrome" would be akin to the illusory cuts and holes in armor and clothing produced by an illusion's attack (though one could argue the latter is produced partly by the mind of the victim, so puddles and dust can't produce ancillary illusions).

Yeah, it's an interesting question, where the line is is not clear, and there are certainly places where the logic is weird and things don't make sense. I both like TFT illusions a lot, and find them problematic too. (I've reinvented them in various ways over the years. I'm not sure what my favorite version is.)

[hcobb]

Does your illusion double have the same uber staff (two hex range, ignore armor, auto-hit) as you do, or just an illusion of an ordinary rod of wood?

[larsdangly]

Deciding what an illusion can and can't do is one of the funner mental chestnuts in ITL. I hope (and guess) it will never by fully settled. Who knows; maybe the wizards who create them aren't even sure what they are capable of...

[Keysh]

Originally Posted by Skarg

I would tend to rationalize, because doors open to reveal the other side, and if the door is not really opened, the imagination of the people believing the illusion cannot provide the information of what is on the other side of the door. Also a door has a conspicuous open/closed state. Underbrush by comparison would just be imagined to part to make way for someone passing through, and springing back, revealing nothing and not changing state.

Hmm... I don't really follow your argument here. "Information of what is on the other side of the door" doesn't enter into it (you're not trying to create an illusion of what's on the other side of the door). There's nothing in the rules to suggest an illusion can't walk around a corner, for example. Indeed, illusions can scout for you (that's the advantage of seeing through their eyes), except that they won't trigger traps and can't go through doors, etc.

Also, doors can be varying degrees of partly open, and underbrush can conceal if it's dense enough and high enough. (What about an illusion of a wolf, which can't see higher than two or three feet?)

[Keysh]

Originally Posted by hcobb

Does your illusion double have the same uber staff (two hex range, ignore armor, auto-hit) as you do, or just an illusion of an ordinary rod of wood?

I would guess you could fall back on the "illusions act like average members of their class, unless it's a specific, recognized person" argument, in which case it depends on whether other viewers know about wizards' staffs and think of you as a wizard. (Which might mean that it only functions like an ordinary wooden staff if you're fighting a pack of wolves...)

If you're a famous wizard with a really high-powered staff, then knowledgable viewers might imbue your illusion double with the same powers. There is a bit on p.138 of ITL which says:

An illusion of a man may not fly, though an illusion of a Gargoyle could; men don’t fly. Of course, if the illusion was of a wizard known to possess a Flight ring, it could fly ...

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Keysh

Hmm... I don't really follow your argument here. "Information of what is on the other side of the door" doesn't enter into it (you're not trying to create an illusion of what's on the other side of the door). There's nothing in the rules to suggest an illusion can't walk around a corner, for example. Indeed, illusions can scout for you (that's the advantage of seeing through their eyes), except that they won't trigger traps and can't go through doors, etc.

Also, doors can be varying degrees of partly open, and underbrush can conceal if it's dense enough and high enough. (What about an illusion of a wolf, which can't see higher than two or three feet?)

It's not about what the illusion can see, but about the knowledge of the caster and the other people.

Example:

The caster, his allies and foes are in a room with a closed door. The caster creates an illusion in the room that they all see. If the caster wants the illusion to seem to open the door, but the actual door remains closed, then what would these people see and hear on the other side of the door? Suppose they have different knowledge and memories of who and what is in that room, and some have never seen that room before. The illusion is a one-hex illusion, and both is size and in information cannot provide an accurate, consistent, or large enough illusion of what would be shown if the door were too be shown to open. Perhaps at most, while the illusion touches the door, it could be shown to open onto darkness or smoke or maybe even an obscure sense the the door is open, but also:

1) The illusion was cast of a figure, and though you can have the illusion do things, you can't generally have the illusion expand to show illusions of other things after you cast it.

2) If the illusion could include an open door (like I think it can include plants and water and things naturally reacting to the movement of the illusionary figure in minor ways that don't disturb their meaningful state), then the illusion of the open door (and what's through it) would be a separate illusion if left open and the illusion lets go of it, which would split and break the illusion.

3) Maybe you could create an illusion of an opening door and coordinate it with the other illusion of the figure, but it seems to me you'd need the illusion to be large enough to show what's supposedly on the other side. So unless you can make do with an illusion of a doorway you can't really see anything though due to a curtain or something, you'd need at least a 4-hex illusion to show some of the interior room revealed by the open door, unless no one has a view into it. Even a 7-hex or 14-hex illusion might not be enough if the room on the other side is known to be bigger and someone has a good view through the illusionary open door.

[Keysh]

OK, I think I understand what you're talking about; apologies for not getting your point earlier.

However, I still think this involves overly complex decision-making, and situations that can easily be altered to make things ambiguous again.

Originally Posted by Skarg

It's not about what the illusion can see, but about the knowledge of the caster and the other people.

Example:

The caster, his allies and foes are in a room with a closed door. The caster creates an illusion in the room that they all see. If the caster wants the illusion to seem to open the door, but the actual door remains closed, then what would these people see and hear on the other side of the door? Suppose they have different knowledge and memories of who and what is in that room, and some have never seen that room before.

What if everyone was just in that room, and already knows what it looks like? Or what if there are other beings in that room, who can themselves supply the "missing information"? What if it's a glass door? Is it then OK for the illusion to open and walk through the door (and possibly attack creatures on the other side)?

(Remember, we're not just talking about whether or not it the illusion can *look* like it's opened and gone through a door or through dense underbrush -- we're talking about whether it can actually do so.)

Originally Posted by Skarg

2) If the illusion could include an open door (like I think it can include plants and water and things naturally reacting to the movement of the illusionary figure in minor ways that don't disturb their meaningful state), then the illusion of the open door (and what's through it) would be a separate illusion if left open and the illusion lets go of it, which would split and break the illusion.

Sure, but one could argue that someone passing through plants will leave behind the illusion of quivering (or even broken) leaves and branches.

At a minimum, there would be the continually tricky problem of deciding whether the plausible effects are "minor" or not

Originally Posted by Skarg

So unless you can make do with an illusion of a doorway you can't really see anything though due to a curtain or something, you'd need at least a 4-hex illusion to show some of the interior room revealed by the open door, unless no one has a view into it. Even a 7-hex or 14-hex illusion might not be enough if the room on the other side is known to be bigger and someone has a good view through the illusionary open door.

But that would suggest that an illusion of a 7-hex dragon could, say, nudge open the door of a one-hex closet and poke its head inside without causing any problems.


As for passing through dense plants: what if the illusion is of a 14-hex dragon? To preserve illusory plausibility, it's going to (appear to) trample a lot of the undergrowth into the ground, so much so that other (real) characters would expect to be able to walk through unhindered after it, and they should expect to see through the region of trampled undergrowth to the other side. (What if I want my 14-hex illusory dragon to go trampling through a hedge maze?) That would seem to bring us back to the "opening the door" problem.

You could argue that particular case is similar enough to the "opening the door" problem that it's not allowed: it's not "minor". But how about if it's a 7-hex dragon? A 4-hex dragon? A giant? Where and how do you draw the line?

(Moreover, the idea that illusions can walk through dense vegetation, and that the appearance of pushing branches aside is itself illusory, implies that they can do things no ordinary being can do: they can actually pass right through vegetation as if they -- or the vegetation -- were completely insubstantial.)


I'd still argue that it's much simpler -- and more in accord with the rules as written -- to assume that illusions just can't affect inanimate objects (or IQ 0 or 1 organisms), full stop.

[Skarg]

Those are all intelligent questions, and ones which can and may come up in play, especially with players who think about those sorts of things. And I do not think the TFT illusion rules specify enough for there to be one correct answer. I think they would be great to nail down for a GM and/or person developing an alternate illusion system.

Originally Posted by Keysh

I'd still argue that it's much simpler -- and more in accord with the rules as written -- to assume that illusions just can't affect inanimate objects (or IQ 0 or 1 organisms), full stop.

Maybe, but I think it implies that there would be many giveaways for a smart observer about what's an illusion or not. I think most observant people who understand this would be able to know an illusion is an illusion by watching an noticing all the missing effects on everything without IQ.

In fact, I think this is why cats and dogs often ignore or don't get what a video image is supposed to be - their senses are acute and include much more hearing, so they don't get many of the usual signs that something is there.

[JLV]

Originally Posted by Skarg

Maybe, but I think it implies that there would be many giveaways for a smart observer about what's an illusion or not. I think most observant people who understand this would be able to know an illusion is an illusion by watching an noticing all the missing effects on everything without IQ.

In fact, I think this is why cats and dogs often ignore or don't get what a video image is supposed to be - their senses are acute and include much more hearing, so they don't get many of the usual signs that something is there.

I don't think this matters though. The fact is that regardless of whether or not you *think* it's an illusion, the only way to get rid of it under the RAW is to either kill or exhaust the wizard casting it, or to disbelieve it. And neither of those actions is affected by what the illusion does or doesn't do. The only real advantage from getting a clue that way is to know which figure to direct your disbelief effort at; you still have to make your IQ roll to actually get rid of the thing, and while you're doing that, you can't do anything else.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by JLV

I don't think this matters though. The fact is that regardless of whether or not you *think* it's an illusion, the only way to get rid of it under the RAW is to either kill or exhaust the wizard casting it, or to disbelieve it. And neither of those actions is affected by what the illusion does or doesn't do. The only real advantage from getting a clue that way is to know which figure to direct your disbelief effort at; you still have to make your IQ roll to actually get rid of the thing, and while you're doing that, you can't do anything else.

Yes to everything but your first sentence.

It does matter, quite a bit, for that very reason.

And if it's known that you can figure out what's an illusion by whether it disturbs puddles, dust or grass, then the illusion game very logically and reasonably would involve "which hexes give away illusions or not?" and setting those up around your camp, etc etc.

That's one way to do it, if that's what you want. It's logical and avoids some questions but creates others.

Another is to say that the viewer perceives appropriate minor side effects, though then the question is where is the line, which is what we were talking about before.