Quote from: Anon Adderlan;935511All GMs are #Illusionists, whether they realize it or not.

Some GMs are illusionists about far more than others.

QuoteThing is their experience is based on what they believe to be true, so it doesn't matter if you're actually running a railroad or straight #Improv, only that your players believe you are.

You may think so. It's fairly simple to test.  Just try a few things that have little to do with anything the GM prompted, and see how the game world responds.

QuoteTo get #Metaphysical for a bit, are choices in the real world any less illusionary?

Yes.

If the setting has a fixed point, like the tower or an event in the timeline, then it should not move from its location once it is recorded there because that is shitty GMing. If you have a notebook full of events and locations that you can drop in anywhere and anywhen, then that is OK for improv work. However, once that improve item has a fixed place, then you don't move it because that is shitty GMing.

It is a bit more complicated than that, like you have to consider how your placement will make sense in the larger setting, but that is the basic bit.

There have been a number of good posts here (will highlight Skarg and AsenRG, but they're joined by many others), so I don't think I have much to add.

I'm curious, though, OP. What's the RPG system that was being used leading up the discussion referenced in post 53? Is that the one that most informs your assumptions going into this thread?

Quote from: Necrozius;935643as well as just adding wings on the goddamned cannibals.

Winged Cannibals!!

That's an awesome idea.

Quote from: Skarg;935704Some GMs are illusionists about far more than others.

Especially gnome GMs.

Quote from: cranebump;935686But I digress. As has already been echoed incessantly, if your players want the game you run, who gives a damn how you shape it? It isn't about being all things to all people. Rather, it is being the main thing for a select few, including yourself.

Nobody. "I don't like it" is not "giving a damn".
Even I told him in the last thread that I don't care how he runs his games. It's between him and his group, after all! (I did advise him to disclose his style to newcomers, but that was about it. And the advise was in order to avoid negative reactions when they find out what his style is - which they will, since he's not keeping it a secret, much to his credit).

What I do object to are his attempts at misrepresenting any and all the other GMing styles as being illusionist, in the hopes of gathering more support for his style. In short, I object to the way he represents it on forum where we both participate, not to his style itself.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;935511All GMs are #Illusionists, whether they realize it or not.

Speak about yourself:).

QuoteTo get #Metaphysical for a bit, are choices in the real world any less illusionary?

To give you a polite answer, #FuckMetaphysicsAndEverythingMeta.

Quote#SystemMatters

#IfILetItMatter.

QuoteDM screens were created for a reason friend

I'll let Gronan tell you the actual reason.

Quote from: Skarg;935703Utter non-sequitur? Did I miss something?

You missed that you're replying to Sommerjon (and making me see his posts in the process, but I'm not going to hold it against you:D).
Expecting logic from his posts is the non-sequitur, I'm afraid.

Quote from: Skarg;935704You may think so. It's fairly simple to test.  Just try a few things that have little to do with anything the GM prompted, and see how the game world responds.

That's a good starting-level check for the practice. I've developed more over the years;).

Quote from: Arminius;935710There have been a number of good posts here (will highlight Skarg and AsenRG, but they're joined by many others), so I don't think I have much to add.

Why, thank you!

I'm loving this "highway" metaphor. That's a great approach!

Quote from: Necrozius;935736I'm loving this "highway" metaphor. That's a great approach!

Agreed:). Although I just consider it a variant of a sandbox, that adds a "default activity for when you have no better ideas".
That's how I treat dungeons, FWIW;).

Quote from: Arminius;935710There have been a number of good posts here (will highlight Skarg and AsenRG, but they're joined by many others), so I don't think I have much to add.

I'm curious, though, OP. What's the RPG system that was being used leading up the discussion referenced in post 53? Is that the one that most informs your assumptions going into this thread?

Two different systems, Star Wars FFG and Ubiquity.

Quote from: Tristram Evans;935654It kinda just sounds like your players are boring.

I concur with Gronan, being surprised by player choices is like 75% of why I GM.

The other 25% is hanging outwith friends, the intellectual/creative stimulation of game prep, and free beer/Doritos.

Why would they be boring?  
Again we are talking about a place here where some of the posters have been playing with the same people for decades.  How in the hell can you play with the same people for decades and still be surprised by their decisions in game?

Players are predictable or players are not nearly as smart as they think they are.  They will do the same handful to at best maybe a dozen things every time a choice is to be made.

Quote from: Xanther;935660If you are never surprised by this last definition, then you must be a genius, an ass or have lame players.

Maybe it's a you problem?  I don't have any issues keeping track of what my players do over the sessions of a campaign.  Perhaps you don't pay attention to what is actually going on in a session?

Quote from: Sommerjon;935745Why would they be boring?  

Players are predictable or players are not nearly as smart as they think they are.  They will do the same handful to at best maybe a dozen things every time a choice is to be made.

And now we no longer suspect, but rather know that your players are boring:D!

You not noticin that you've answered your own question would have been ironic with someone else. With you, it's business as usual, though;).

Quote from: Sommerjon;935745...

Maybe it's a you problem?  I don't have any issues keeping track of what my players do over the sessions of a campaign.  Perhaps you don't pay attention to what is actually going on in a session?

Ahhh now you've changed the question, or deliberate obtuseness to the rescue.  Keeping track of what the players are doing is never a problem.  That's just paying attention and notes.  If that is all you mean then of course I'm never "surprised."

I believe I and the others who like surprises are referring to the players undertaking an unanticipated course of action, especially when they come up with creative and inventive ideas in the adventure.  If you've been playing for years and years and your players have never come up with ideas outside the box on how to solve a situation in your game then you are either a genius (who can see so many more moves ahead than others), an ass (your players don't want to step off the train you set them on for fear of upsetting you) or the players are lame (they just can't think of anything but the obvious).

Quote from: AsenRG;935732Nobody. "I don't like it" is not "giving a damn".
Even I told him in the last thread that I don't care how he runs his games. It's between him and his group, after all! (I did advise him to disclose his style to newcomers, but that was about it. And the advise was in order to avoid negative reactions when they find out what his style is - which they will, since he's not keeping it a secret, much to his credit).

What I do object to are his attempts at misrepresenting any and all the other GMing styles as being illusionist, in the hopes of gathering more support for his style. In short, I object to the way he represents it on forum where we both participate, not to his style itself.

I think rgrove sounds like a talented GM whose players have no problems with his way of GM'ing, which is fine and I'd be curious to at least try playing briefly, though I have a great preference for more games that aim to simulate and not storytell nor genre-emulate nor bend-universe-for-players.

However he keeps posing questions that ask what we think or prefer, or that suggest there is no difference between various different ways of GMing, in ways that are tempting to reply to, even though he seems to almost always not get the answers somehow.

QuoteYou missed that you're replying to Sommerjon (and making me see his posts in the process, but I'm not going to hold it against you:D).
Expecting logic from his posts is the non-sequitur, I'm afraid.

I noticed it was Sommerjon. (I self-censored part of my response.) I wasn't hoping for logic, but I was struck more than usual by the seeming utter lack of semantic contact.

QuoteThat's a good starting-level check for the practice. I've developed more over the years;).

Yeah I have others too, and a general sense for it, but that was an attempt to explain to someone who seems to lack any.

Oh and I didn't reply earlier to your comment about maps. Of course the players never see THE map.

Quote from: Xanther;935747I believe I and the others who like surprises are referring to the players undertaking an unanticipated course of action, especially when they come up with creative and inventive ideas in the adventure.  If you've been playing for years and years and your players have never come up with ideas outside the box on how to solve a situation in your game then you are either a genius (who can see so many more moves ahead than others), an ass (your players don't want to step off the train you set them on for fear of upsetting you) or the players are lame (they just can't think of anything but the obvious).

Last campaign I ran, the party decided to double cross an ancient copper dragon with whom they had secretly agreed to destroy an ancient artifact.  The party had support of all the other major good forces in the realm and were widely seen as the saviors of the world.  Completely took me by surprise they would go back on their word (had not done so all campaign) and the dragon was in a position such that confronting them would cripple its own alliances.  I was stumped for figuring out the Dragon's response.

Quote from: Old One Eye;935751Last campaign I ran, the party decided to double cross an ancient copper dragon with whom they had secretly agreed to destroy an ancient artifact.  The party had support of all the other major good forces in the realm and were widely seen as the saviors of the world.  Completely took me by surprise they would go back on their word (had not done so all campaign) and the dragon was in a position such that confronting them would cripple its own alliances.  I was stumped for figuring out the Dragon's response.

I assume this is a game with alignments?  If so it should very much be a surprise if the player's are of good or lawful alignment, and they should suffer the consequences for violating their alignment.

I'd go with your response as the dragons.  Clearly such duplicity, that hamstrings the dragon from responding, would leave someone speechless.  Another common response to breaking an agreement is anger or litigation. This is good though, now the dragon can set out to seek revenge and hold the players to the agreement.

Quote from: AsenRG;935746And now we no longer suspect, but rather know that your players are boring:D!

You not noticin that you've answered your own question would have been ironic with someone else. With you, it's business as usual, though;).

Wanna know something funny.  I've gamed with people from this very board.  Glad to know you find people on this bored boring.

Quote from: Xanther;935747Ahhh now you've changed the question, or deliberate obtuseness to the rescue.  Keeping track of what the players are doing is never a problem.  That's just paying attention and notes.  If that is all you mean then of course I'm never "surprised."

I believe I and the others who like surprises are referring to the players undertaking an unanticipated course of action, especially when they come up with creative and inventive ideas in the adventure.  If you've been playing for years and years and your players have never come up with ideas outside the box on how to solve a situation in your game then you are either a genius (who can see so many more moves ahead than others), an ass (your players don't want to step off the train you set them on for fear of upsetting you) or the players are lame (they just can't think of anything but the obvious).

I changed nothing.  Like I said it's a you problem.