Quote from: HinterWelt;273446For me, think of it as more of a randomizer element. If it derails the fun of the group, then I need to act (as the GM) with the groups permission.

I admit I have a hard time when I read sentiments like "derailing the fun of the group." It's never been my experience that a group of gamers all shares the exact same definition of fun, so if I'm putting my thumb on the scales to influence the direction of 'fun,' I'm really putting my idea of fun ahead of that of the other people around the table.

And mother-may-I? spoils my immersion.

Quote from: HinterWeltI am not a slave to the system or the dice, they are the servant of the group.

For me the dice are neither master nor servant - they are an active participant.

As you say, different strokes.

Quote from: KingSpoomWhat system do you use, if you don't mind?

The last game I played was Mongoose Traveller, I'm most familiar with WoD and I've played a lot of Palladium, D&D, and Toon.

Quote from: The Shaman;273464It's never been my experience that a group of gamers all shares the exact same definition of fun, so if I'm putting my thumb on the scales to influence the direction of 'fun,' I'm really putting my idea of fun ahead of that of the other people around the table.

You're assuming that a GM has zero empathy or understanding of what others find fun, just their own narrow view. Again this is the Forger mentality shining through, that the people at the game table are completely unconnected and uncaring, each impatiently waiting their turn for some fun.

And really most game groups aren't like that. For example, when asked by me what was their most memorable moment in a game session, quite a few gamers named a moment their character had no part in - the player was just watching. And it was said, "I wouldn't have enjoyed it if it were my character, but I could see it was really great for them."

Watching other people have fun can be fun in itself, even if you wouldn't enjoy that thing itself.

When a GM says, "this will be fun," they don't mean "for me", but "fun for the group as a whole." The judgment of what this is, it's made up of a sort of stew of the different players' different ideas of fun, while keeping in mind that players do actually have empathy and enjoy watching each-other have fun.

Edit: eg this blog post, "I really enjoyed the last session of our Traveller campaign, not least because the players had such a great time." The guy is hardly unique.

Quote from: The Shaman;273464I admit I have a hard time when I read sentiments like "derailing the fun of the group." It's never been my experience that a group of gamers all shares the exact same definition of fun, so if I'm putting my thumb on the scales to influence the direction of 'fun,' I'm really putting my idea of fun ahead of that of the other people around the table.

And mother-may-I? spoils my immersion.For me the dice are neither master nor servant - they are an active participant.

As you say, different strokes.

Perhaps an example or is it you just have different preferences? I am just hoping to explain my preferences to yoru understanding so please take it in that sense.

That said, an example would be when the dice work to kill the entire group. Say, at the doorway of the dungeon. Not because they tromped a path to that point but because the thief got a crap roll. One crap roll, a gas trap and thats a TPK with the entire group rolling up new characters. Senseless and not to the point of the game. Alternatively, I might say the group "of course" was out of range since they are seasoned or would have been cautious or whatever even if they did not say it specifically. The thief may buy it but the rest of the party can loot his stuff or raise him if they have the resources. If it is a TPK, well, no one is left and we spend the night rolling up characters. Now, I know people who serious love to spend nights rolling up char after char, that is not how my groups usually roll.

As to the dice being a participant, I do not give them that much credit. The most I could do would be to say they are a tool. Sometimes a tool is helpful, other times it is not and a craftsmen must know when to use a tool and which tool to use.

Again, not knocking on you, just trying to make sure you understand where I am coming from.

Bill

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;273468You're assuming that a GM has zero empathy or understanding of what others find fun, just their own narrow view. Again this is the Forger mentality shining through, that the people at the game table are completely unconnected and uncaring, each impatiently waiting their turn for some fun.

And really most game groups aren't like that. For example, when asked by me what was their most memorable moment in a game session, quite a few gamers named a moment their character had no part in - the player was just watching. And it was said, "I wouldn't have enjoyed it if it were my character, but I could see it was really great for them."

Watching other people have fun can be fun in itself, even if you wouldn't enjoy that thing itself.

When a GM says, "this will be fun," they don't mean "for me", but "fun for the group as a whole." The judgment of what this is, it's made up of a sort of stew of the different players' different ideas of fun, while keeping in mind that players do actually have empathy and enjoy watching each-other have fun.

Yes. This.

Pundit,
  The only time that it is OK is when every player buys in to Illusionism is ok.

  If the GM tries it and the players don't know or buy in, then its a pretty underhanded technique...

I seldom have the issue come up, because I do not set up scenarios where the PCs arrive at the last second.

I also apply 'PC knowledge': if the player does not know, but his PC would, I tell him.

And I write scenarios which usually have more than one solution.

But otherwise, I let things happen. If the players screw things up, they screw them up. PCs die. It happens. TPKs are not the end of the world (although they can be the end of a campaign).

But if you have to pave the way for them, what's the point? The players aren't accomplishing anything, and you're just going through the motions.

Besides, the screw-ups and weird incorrect ideas create the best plot twists and campaign off-shoots.

Some time ago I ran a lengthy campaign based on the TV series Firefly. The PCs were hired to deliver a briefcase to a particular guy. They obtained a cargo, delivered it to the same planet, and went to make the meet. On the way to the meeting place, one PC exchanged words with an NPC named Chuck-just a pointless color encounter.

They arrived at the meeting place, and failed to locate the other half (the player tasked with keeping notes read off the wrong page, and they were looking for a NPC they did business with a long time ago).

They became convinced that Chuck had delayed them while the courior was ambushed (how they arrived at this, I do not know).

Three five-hour sessions and a dead PC later (plus various dead NPCs, hostiles, etc), The Search for Chuck was concluded.

Mistakes, mis-interpetations, and gross screw-ups write a big part of a campaign, IMO.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;273468You're assuming that a GM has zero empathy or understanding of what others find fun, just their own narrow view.

Not at all. I am assuming that there are often as many playstyles as there are players, and that the referee's playstyle is equally important, if not perhaps a little more so.

Quote from: Kyle AaronAgain this is the Forger mentality shining through, that the people at the game table are completely unconnected and uncaring, each impatiently waiting their turn for some fun.

I don't know anything about the Forge other than what I've read in passing on different websites, so I have no idea what constitutes a "Forger mentality," but I can say that, in my experience, that's a lot of bollocks.

Quote from: Kyle AaronWatching other people have fun can be fun in itself, even if you wouldn't enjoy that thing itself.

Forgive me, but as my students have been known to say, "Well duuuhhh."

Quote from: Kyle AaronWhen a GM says, "this will be fun," they don't mean "for me", but "fun for the group as a whole."

And I'm suggesting when we sit down to play a game together, let's actually play the game, by the rules we agreed upon, and when I'm behind the screen I'll take as my role interpreting the results, not making them up or throwing them out.

Quote from: HinterWelt;273470Perhaps an example or is it you just have different preferences?

Don't worry - you're clear as a bell. Just different preferences.

Quote from: HinterWeltThat said, an example would be when the dice work to kill the entire group. Say, at the doorway of the dungeon. Not because they tromped a path to that point but because the thief got a crap roll. One crap roll, a gas trap and thats a TPK with the entire group rolling up new characters. Senseless and not to the point of the game.

Then that's a flaw in design by the referee, IMHO, not a problem with random results. If you don't want death on the table, then don't put it there - come up with different consequences for failure when you design the encounter.

Once again, just my preference.

As a player I don't mind some level of railroading by the GM, as long as the tracks lead someplace cool and I'll get to make meaningful choices at least within the context of each encounter/set-piece if not necessarily what happens in-between them (I don't mind it if the GM manipulates things so that the party arrives at the Big Evil's lair just as he's beginning his final ritual, so long as how the scene plays out, whether or not we're able to stop him, depends on our decisions and actions as players and not something the GM has already decided in advance (or, even worse, left in the hands of NPCs)).

I also want the GM to be up-front about it, though. I prefer having no choice than having fake choices with no actual consequences (which is, I suppose, the essence of illusionism). Maybe if I were playing with a GM who was really good at it so that I couldn't tell what he was doing, if I actually believed in the illusion, I wouldn't mind, but I never have. When we pass a fork in the road, I can always tell if the encounters we're having on this branch are an actual consequence of the decision we made at the fork, or if we would've had the same encounters regardless.

As a GM, I try to run the type of game I'd like to be a player in. When I railroad the players I tell them I'm doing it, and the reason why (because I'm trying to "cut to the chase" of the cool encounter/scene rather than wasting the entire session with them failing to properly piece together the clues or chasing after red herrings), but when I do offer them choices, they're real choices with real consequences, even if that might screw up the intended plot or spoil a cool encounter/scene I had planned for later (in which case I'll usually tell the players post-session the cool scene I had planned and how they ruined it, which they can feel good about if what they actually did ended up being more fun or advantageous for them than what I had planned, or bad if it turned out less fun and advantageous...).

Because of that, I try to make important juncture-points dependent on conscious player decision rather than dice-rolls or uninformed decisions (which are essentially dice-rolls without dice). If the players screw up one of my adventures I want it to be because they consciously did something especially clever (or especially unclever) that I wasn't expecting, not because they just happened to make a really lucky (or really unlucky) die roll or decided to go left instead of right when there was nothing particularly suggesting they should go right.

Quote from: T. Foster;273511As a player I don't mind some level of railroading by the GM, as long as the tracks lead someplace cool and I'll get to make meaningful choices at least within the context of each encounter/set-piece if not necessarily what happens in-between them

Exactly. This is what I'm talking about in my previous post. The group may or may not care about directly controlling the direction of the overall campaign framework (the "story" if you must), but within a given "module"/"adventure", I want to have a real impact. The same goes within a "module", if you focus on the encounter, I want the decisions of the players and their interactions via the mechanics to be genuinely consequential without a forced outcome.

QuoteBecause of that, I try to make important juncture-points dependent on conscious player decision rather than dice-rolls or uninformed decisions (which are essentially dice-rolls without dice)

This is an insightful equation. I disagree slightly that important junctions always have to depend on conscious player decision, though—I'd only insist on this when the junction contains an outcome which could be game-breaking. As I think Bill (Hinterwelt) said upthread, even TPKs aren't necessarily game-breaking, and I think that applies even when they happen through no fault of the players.

Yes, usually these days people want that degree of control, but that hasn't been universally the case as long as the outcomes aren't monotonous. In really, really old-style gaming, it helps if people don't worry about OOC/in-character information, which turns initially uninformed decisions into informed ones. I.e., so your party died when they went left. Roll up a new party and go right. Even these days I think the ideas of "setting mastery" and "system mastery" operate along these lines, provided people actually enjoy learning rather than having things operate according to preconceived notions they bring to the table.

To return to the main thread--it may be odd to say that players ought to be able to make decisions at junctions which contain game-breaking outcomes. I mean, that suggests that a game-breaking outcome is still on the table, right? We don't want that, do we? However, I think the real point is that players ought to be able to have enough input into the range of outcomes so that they get to define what is or isn't "game breaking". The only problem is when the GM and various players have widely diverging concepts of "game breaking" and "interest"--when something I think is an interesting question contains a possible answer which would break the game for you.

Given the definition on the first page, the only major instance I have seen where that would be okay is in SotC/FATE's compel system, because in that case the GM can only enforce PC actions that the player actually chose for their character via Aspects, and even then the player can buy off the compel so that they don't have to do it.  So in that instance, the player still has control over that situation.

Quote from: RPGPundit;273320Is 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?

Does it add to the fun for you and your players?
Does it move the story along to something more exciting?

If your answer to both questions is YES, then illusionism is a great tool.

It matters about as much as any other construct of gaming theory. It gives a technique a name, but the name is unimportant. If it adds to the fun, it's good. If it doesn't, it's bad. There is no yes or no answer.

Quote from: RPGPundit;273320Well, 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

For me it's like fudging dice. It's not necessary.

In my experience, it takes the average player in D&D 3.5 most of an evening to create a new character.  That new character then needs to be inserted into the campaign.  Inserting a character in a logical and rational way is not always possible, which leads to either the hand-wave insertion ("Poof, a cleric joins your party as you enter the next room.") or a player side-lined for possibly several sessions.

Thus, players find it annoying when their character dies.  They cannot play while they do not have a character, which makes their presence at the game table awkward at best.  Player are less likely to be annoyed by character death if the death occurs at a dramatic highpoint.

At low levels, the D20 system is exceptionally "swingy."  Dice can buck probability trends in remarkable ways, causing players to fail catastrophically against minor challenges, or causing minor challenges to overwhelm players.  Simple hazards meant to keep players on their toes accidentally become meatgrinders that derail an entire session.

Thus, Illusionism.

Four kobolds attack a party of four.  All four kobolds must aim their 1d3 bows at the party fighter (13 HP), needing 17s to hit.  One should hit for 2 points each round.  First round plays out as expected.  Second round, roll to hit and get...20, 20, 20, 20.  Roll to confirm, and get 20, 19, 17, 19.  Roll damage (12d3) and get 22 points of damage.  Silently thank deity for the DM Screen, inform player that one Kobold critically hits for 6 points of damage.

Later, the party bursts into the wizard's temple as he finishes his grand ritual.  A player excitedly shouts out a plan. Other players marvel at the ingenuity of the plan.  Ask player to make an attribute check and either makes it a contested roll or fails to announce DC (never tell them the DC).  Regardless of roll, announce player succeeds.  Watch player beam with joy.  Abort if player rolls so miserably that they will not believe they could have possibly succeeded.  Invoke emergency use of comedic mishaps.  Totally screw failing player in a way that interrupts the ritual. Watch players beam with joy even when falling on their faces.