FWIW, here is the finished post about improv x railroads. Thanks for all the feedback!

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/01/improvisation-railroading-illusionism.html

Quote from: Ruprecht on January 16, 2022, 09:59:13 AM

Quote from: Itachi on January 16, 2022, 09:53:43 AM
The same point of having a mystery at all - problem solving, excitement for the unknown, getting surprised, etc. From the players POV it's irrelevant if the GM stays true to his prep or changes things around, and as long as the mystery solution keeps coherent, where is the problem?

While I agree in most cases that a switch is fine if they don't know, for a mystery it just doesn't seem right. A mystery should have clues that mean something.

The two things aren't even the same thing, let alone the same game.  Changing clues, who the bad guy actually is, etc. is all about playing the style of a mystery.  Playing the substance of a mystery is completely different, and cannot be done with fudging, illusionism, etc.  Illusionism especially is death for that game.  This issue is a subset of when gamers talk about "story" they need to define their terms, because "mystery style" and "mystery substance" are almost polar opposite in approach.

The biggest difference, (implicit in Eric's revised article now) is that a substance mystery demands that the players can fail, and fail badly.  Not merely a "doesn't get the dame, gets weaseled out of their fee, etc." kind of detective story where the case is still solved, but the possibility that the case is not solved or even solved incorrectly.  The presence of such failure is what makes success  all the sweeter for players that desire a mystery with substance. 

Agreed - why would anyone pay attention to clues if there is no "right" answer to the mystery? Doesn't feel right to me.

But who said the improv-mystery can't fail? 

I'm struggling to see much difference between the two styles, at least from the player side of the screen.

Well, the difference is right there - you're either looking for clues to find the culprit, or looking for clues so the GM can invent a culprit later on. In one case what clues you find (and how interpret them) is important to the outcome, in the other it is not.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on January 24, 2022, 11:01:37 AM
FWIW, here is the finished post about improv x railroads. Thanks for all the feedback!

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/01/improvisation-railroading-illusionism.html

Thanks for sharing!

Hopefully it helps aspiring GMs, or GMs feeling in a creative rut, out of comfort zones and into something inspiring. Letting the progressing fiction surprise you can help make the shared dream feel very alive! It is a little scary giving up such control, but I have been so pleasantly surprised by the results I find it hard to go back.

QuoteWell, the difference is right there - you're either looking for clues to find the culprit, or looking for clues so the GM can invent a culprit later on. In one case what clues you find (and how interpret them) is important to the outcome, in the other it is not.

But in illusionism you don't know it.
And in game using storygame mechanics you may still roll failure on overall scheme and sort of be forced to invent how you fail, for example.

Quote from: Wrath of God on January 25, 2022, 07:38:18 PM
But in illusionism you don't know it.
And in game using storygame mechanics you may still roll failure on overall scheme and sort of be forced to invent how you fail, for example.

One of the big differences is that GM's running with illusionism are under the illusion that the players don't know it, while those not running it know that they do.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on January 24, 2022, 12:24:04 PM
Well, the difference is right there - you're either looking for clues to find the culprit, or looking for clues so the GM can invent a culprit later on. In one case what clues you find (and how interpret them) is important to the outcome, in the other it is not.

It's the idea of GM as an impartial adjudicator.
A storytelling GM is not impartial. They are willing to bend the world around the characters in order to facilitate gameplay.

If the players are onboard for illusionist methods, then they probably won't care.
Myself, I dislike illusionism. I like a scenario to have set parameters and know it's my cleverness as a player that determines if we succeed, not DM fancy.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 25, 2022, 10:32:34 PMIt's the idea of GM as an impartial adjudicator.
A storytelling GM is not impartial. They are willing to bend the world around the characters in order to facilitate gameplay.

If by "facilitate gameplay" you meant to make the game more interesting to everybody on the table yes, I agree. But if you meant to say the GM somehow makes it easier for the players, then it doesn't resemble any of the games I've read or played, story- or otherwise.

QuoteIf the players are onboard for illusionist methods, then they probably won't care.
Myself, I dislike illusionism. I like a scenario to have set parameters and know it's my cleverness as a player that determines if we succeed, not DM fancy.

Again, the same confusing idea. Narrative games I know don't put success or failure in the hands of the GM, but on the roll of the dice.

Quote from: Itachi on January 25, 2022, 11:40:52 PM
Narrative games I know don't put success or failure in the hands of the GM, but on the roll of the dice.

Storygames are anti-illusionist. They're designed to be wholly transparent. Illusionism is a 'trad' (ie 1985-1990s) game method.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on January 25, 2022, 09:41:15 PM
One of the big differences is that GM's running with illusionism are under the illusion that the players don't know it, while those not running it know that they do.

Illusionist GMs seem to think that because most of their non-aspergery players are too polite to point out the obvious fakery, that means they didn't notice the fakery. Meanwhile the players are sighing and (mostly) putting up with it, in search of a good time.

Quote from: Itachi on January 25, 2022, 11:40:52 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 25, 2022, 10:32:34 PMIt's the idea of GM as an impartial adjudicator.
A storytelling GM is not impartial. They are willing to bend the world around the characters in order to facilitate gameplay.

If by "facilitate gameplay" you meant to make the game more interesting to everybody on the table yes, I agree.

But I find a world bending around my charaters to be uninteresting.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 26, 2022, 02:59:07 AM

Quote from: Itachi on January 25, 2022, 11:40:52 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 25, 2022, 10:32:34 PMIt's the idea of GM as an impartial adjudicator.
A storytelling GM is not impartial. They are willing to bend the world around the characters in order to facilitate gameplay.

If by "facilitate gameplay" you meant to make the game more interesting to everybody on the table yes, I agree.

But I find a world bending around my charaters to be uninteresting.

That's fair.

Quote from: S'mon on January 26, 2022, 02:34:33 AM

Quote from: Itachi on January 25, 2022, 11:40:52 PM
Narrative games I know don't put success or failure in the hands of the GM, but on the roll of the dice.

Storygames are anti-illusionist. They're designed to be wholly transparent. Illusionism is a 'trad' (ie 1985-1990s) game method.

That's fair too.