Well, 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
Well, if you mean in the sense that the world is really less detailed than what they experience because the focus on their characters creates the illusion of depth, well, that's the heart of the whole roleplaying game experience.
If you mean in game illusions, well they can be over used but can also be an interesting plot device.
If you mean swinish DMing, well that's just unforgivable.
The easy answer is, yes.
Now, first, I want to get something out of the way. It's not "illusionism" if the GM is representing a false sense of success on the part of the character, which is false in the fiction as well. E.g. I could imagine a PC under the influence of drugs or magic. Or the PC might be being "set up" by a con. These aren't illusionism, and of course they'd be okay.
Now, the easy answer is that it's also okay if everyone's on board with it.
But it's not something I like, personally.
Nah, he means in the Forger sense (http://indie-rpgs.com/_articles/glossary.html),
"A family of Techniques in which a GM, usually in the interests of story creation, story creation, exerts Force over player-character decisions, in which he or she has authority over resolution-outcomes, and in which the players do not necessarily recognize these features."
So it's when you're railroading the players but pretending it's a proper game instead.
Is it ever "justified"? I dunno. I don't think it's even possible unless your players are all morons. Most players know when they're being railroaded, the only one being fooled by any "illusion" is the illusionist, the GM. "I totally let you do whatever you want... honest!"
You mean "railroading and bullshitting to make it look like their choice"?
*Shrug*
It's a social lie. Occasionally, insignificant lies are just part of general social behaviour - "I'm not hungry" when someone cooks something that you think is gross, that kind of thing.
As with any other social lie, a little can be normal and smooth stuff over. Doing so habitually, regularly, or about big things, makes the whole interaction into bullshit.
I use it a lot in my games, if I understand it correctly. If my players make good characters, and I introduce a villain that is going to do something horrible, I'm pretty much railroading them. I might write up a dungeon here or there, or make some optional side quests, but the game is going to be able the villain. If the players decide to ignore the villain, I might keep running the game in the wake of whatever he did, but that would just be stupid.
I think that a lot of players are overly sensitive to the act of railroading. They act like the GM should make an array of inconsequential dungeons and moderate villainy, and then let them pick whatever one is more interesting to them and their troupe of True Neutral / Anarchist / Self Serving player characters. It's boring to me. I don't like running it.
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;273327You mean "railroading and bullshitting to make it look like their choice"?
*Shrug*
It's a social lie. Occasionally, insignificant lies are just part of general social behaviour - "I'm not hungry" when someone cooks something that you think is gross, that kind of thing.
As with any other social lie, a little can be normal and smooth stuff over. Doing so habitually, regularly, or about big things, makes the whole interaction into bullshit.
I agree with this.
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;273327You mean "railroading and bullshitting to make it look like their choice"?
*Shrug*
It's a social lie. Occasionally, insignificant lies are just part of general social behaviour - "I'm not hungry" when someone cooks something that you think is gross, that kind of thing.
As with any other social lie, a little can be normal and smooth stuff over. Doing so habitually, regularly, or about big things, makes the whole interaction into bullshit.
This is why I think that illusionism is not so bad, as long as you use it sparingly. It becomes a problem when there is too much of it.
It depends.
If you are in a group in which there is only ever one person who GMs, I think Illusionism can work really well.
In my group, in which we are all fairly experienced GMs it doesn't work at all - once the players figure out that their choices and action don't really matter, it's all over.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;273325"A family of Techniques in which a GM, usually in the interests of story creation, story creation, exerts Force over player-character decisions, in which he or she has authority over resolution-outcomes, and in which the players do not necessarily recognize these features."
Example: The BBEG is in the middle of a ritual to summon a huge demon. You have one action to disrupt him and stop the ritual. The illusionism part of the is that no matter what you try, your action (and sometimes maybe even inaction) is going to interupt the ritual; the GM has already decided that. You might light his robe on fire or you might just yell really loud.
If you knew that anything would work, it'd take the glory out of success. The reason many forgers (and others) believe illusionism is better than railroading is that when you "do it right", the players do believe and still have that glorious feeling. The problem, of course, is what happens if they ever do find out. I find that it flips all of that over to the negative side of things.
I think illusionism is spawned from lack of system support. The system doesn't tell you what would interupt a ritual or how good of an interupt lighting a robe on fire would be. The GM is also at fault. He's probably letting an NPC do something he has a vested interest in (for success or failure).
Quote from: KingSpoom;273356Example: The BBEG is in the middle of a ritual to summon a huge demon. You have one action to disrupt him and stop the ritual. The illusionism part of the is that no matter what you try, your action (and sometimes maybe even inaction) is going to interupt the ritual; the GM has already decided that. You might light his robe on fire or you might just yell really loud.
If you knew that anything would work, it'd take the glory out of success. The reason many forgers (and others) believe illusionism is better than railroading is that when you "do it right", the players do believe and still have that glorious feeling. The problem, of course, is what happens if they ever do find out. I find that it flips all of that over to the negative side of things.
I think illusionism is spawned from lack of system support. The system doesn't tell you what would interupt a ritual or how good of an interupt lighting a robe on fire would be. The GM is also at fault. He's probably letting an NPC do something he has a vested interest in (for success or failure).
When I want to avoid the kind of thing you are talking about, I try to let the characters know what works, in character. So, for example, if I've decided that the party will get there in the last round, I need to know that they should know what will work.
I might have a game a few before that one where the party has to interrupt a ritual. Sense it isn't big deal boss fight, I'll pretty much tell them what will work, usually based on a skill check. Sense 5-6 pcs are making the check, one of them is certain to pass it. I tell him, "shouting won't work, but lighting him on fire will." So he sets the guy on fire, problem solved.
Later in the story, they have to stop the BBEG. I won't tell them how to stop him at this point, and I might even suggest that he will have more powers of concentration than other wizards. Now, they should put together that they need to set him on fire + something, or use a lot of fire...
My players aren't stupid, so I can rest assured that they will figure it out. I've given them the answer, but if enough time has passed, it won't seem like I have. They get to figure something out, I get the ending I want, and everyone is happy.
I don't really use this technique.
As a GM if I don't like the result of a die roll, I say something along the lines of "That's dumb! Instead this happens."
As a GM there is no need to hide when you're forcing a result.
If you want to, to help maintain immersion or whatever...that's cool wih me as a player :D
Quote from: KrakaJak;273371As a GM if I don't like the result of a die roll, I say something along the lines of "That's dumb! Instead this happens."
Did you ever stop and ask yourself "Why am I rolling the die when something dumb could happen?" or does it only occur to you after you roll? It's almost the same thing. You'll roll the dice and they succeed, so they interupt the ritual. If they fail, it's dumb, and they interupt the ritual. The die roll is an illusion to cover the Drama resolution system you employ.
Well, I don't think there's anything wrong with plonking the same encounter (eg: you meet 3 ogres) in front of the PCs whether they went left or right, as long as the left-right decision was not meaningful - eg if the PCs go left because they know that ogres are to the right, I better have a darn good reason to hit them with the same ogre encounter either way.
Not if you mean discreetly railroading the players into sticking to your plot. That's just lame. It feels like molesting them in their sleep. Then again that's why I like running zombie games. I let the players do whatever the hell they damn well please and when the time seems right I bring out my dead.
Quote from: KingSpoom;273390Did you ever stop and ask yourself "Why am I rolling the die when something dumb could happen?" or does it only occur to you after you roll? It's almost the same thing. You'll roll the dice and they succeed, so they interupt the ritual. If they fail, it's dumb, and they interupt the ritual. The die roll is an illusion to cover the Drama resolution system you employ.
I do so because I enjoy being surprised. Often I like the challenge of working with the unlikely. I like the unpredictability that the dice adds to the personalities of the players at the table. All are factors I do not control. With the dice, if I do not like the result I change it but I do so in front of the players and generally with their approval. I have also had them protest to keep the stupid result and have rolled with it. The trick is that the group trumps the die (as an extension of the system) and as GM, you are the advocate of the group in this instance. The dice should facilitate fun, both yours as the GM and the players as a means of adding an indeterminate element.
Or, I am full of shit and a colossal dick of a GM.
Quote from: KingSpoom;273356I think illusionism is spawned from lack of system support. The system doesn't tell you what would interupt a ritual or how good of an interupt lighting a robe on fire would be.
A system can't tell you everything. If it could, we wouldn't need GMs. The GM is meant to use their judgment to choose what seems reasonable and/or fun.
If as GM you're uncomfortable deciding what is reasonable and/or fun, then you should be a player, not a GM. It's like being a football player who doesn't like sweating, or being a ballroom dancer who doesn't like dressing up. It's a fundamental part of the hobby.
The Forgers are uncomfortable with this GM power because they're generally crappy GMs and players. This happens all the time, people see someone use power with incompetence, and rather than saying it was an incompetent use of the power, they say that there's something wrong with having that power at all. So they try to transfer it all to the game system instead.
Quote from: KingSpoomDid you ever stop and ask yourself "Why am I rolling the die when something dumb could happen?" or does it only occur to you after you roll? It's almost the same thing.
GMs roll the dice for inspiration as well as determination. Most of the time the dice roll results will inspire something reasonable and/or fun. Sometimes it'll be stupid. Again, the GM must use their judgment.
Quote from: CranewingsI think that a lot of players are overly sensitive to the act of railroading. They act like the GM should make an array of inconsequential dungeons and moderate villainy, and then let them pick whatever one is more interesting to them and their troupe of True Neutral / Anarchist / Self Serving player characters. It's boring to me. I don't like running it.
And those are crappy players. The GM isn't there to cater to a player's every whim, but to present reasonable opportunities for a fun and interesting adventure. That's why it's a game
group. "Work with me, guys - you said you wanted a dungeon, and here it is. So go into the dungeon, will you?" Most times the GM doesn't have to say that explicitly because most players are not cocksmocks.
Quote from: HinterWelt;273426I do so because I enjoy being surprised. Often I like the challenge of working with the unlikely. I like the unpredictability that the dice adds to the personalities of the players at the table. All are factors I do not control.
I agree with this.
Quote from: HinterWeltWith the dice, if I do not like the result I change it but I do so in front of the players and generally with their approval.
And I disagree with this.
For me the unpredictable nature of roleplaying games is a huge draw. Putting one's finger on the scale detracts from that experience.
Roll the dice. Accept the results. That's my style.
Quote from: KingSpoom;273390The die roll is an illusion to cover the Drama resolution system you employ.
Please don't use nonsensical, opaque jargon.
Quote from: Idinsinuation;273425Not if you mean discreetly railroading the players into sticking to your plot. That's just lame. It feels like molesting them in their sleep. Then again that's why I like running zombie games. I let the players do whatever the hell they damn well please and when the time seems right I bring out my dead.
The first part of this post seems to contradict the second part--unless the players are aware that whatever they do initially, it won't affect the arrival of the zombies.
That said, maybe I'm just looking at it the wrong way. After all the group probably has it on the table that "this will be a zombie" game, and as GM, you may be expected to introduce zombies in a time and manner appropriate to the situation generated by the players.
This is the place where "illusionism" starts to break down as a concept. What looks like unwelcome "illusionism" in the general case isn't illusionism, or at least isn't unwelcome, when everyone at the table understands how genre expectations will be used to frame the action.
Quote from: KingSpoom;273390The die roll is an illusion to cover the Drama resolution system you employ.
Nah, if they fail they don't interupt the ritual. That's part of the
game in role playing game. Why roll dice if all you wanted to do is tell a story ?
Regards,
David R
Quote from: The Shaman;273428I agree with this.And I disagree with this.
For me the unpredictable nature of roleplaying games is a huge draw. Putting one's finger on the scale detracts from that experience.
Roll the dice. Accept the results. That's my style.
Oh and different strokes and all that. For 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 am not a slave to the system or the dice, they are the servant of the group.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;273427And those are crappy players. The GM isn't there to cater to a player's every whim, but to present reasonable opportunities for a fun and interesting adventure. That's why it's a game group. "Work with me, guys - you said you wanted a dungeon, and here it is. So go into the dungeon, will you?" Most times the GM doesn't have to say that explicitly because most players are not cocksmocks.
I disagree with this--I mean, it seems like you didn't really read the post you quoted, Kyle. Cranewing wants to play games with a big villain and a plot centered on his plans. His players don't. There's a fundamental disagreement on what the game is about.
Personally I think I'd rather have the game the players want, but that's not the issue. Although I'll add that I'd like it even more if the GM made "villains", or rather strong NPCs factions with various motivations, and allowed the party the choice to get directly involved or operate in the "wake" of their actions. To me Cranewing's hit on a great paradigm for dynamic sandbox play even though it isn't his cup of tea.
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?
No, it's not.
Important exception: One-shot games, assuming everyone is on board with it. Which, given the format, everyone bloody well should be. But in that case no deceit actually occurs.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;273447I disagree with this--I mean, it seems like you didn't really read the post you quoted, Kyle. Cranewing wants to play games with a big villain and a plot centered on his plans. His players don't. There's a fundamental disagreement on what the game is about.
I read it, we must have just read it differently. From the brief bit he said, it basically seems that he wants adventures with some kind of direction and point to them, while they want to just wander around killing things and taking their stuff.
So it's not that he has one aim and the players have another, but that he has an aim and the players are aimless. Notice his emphasis on "Anarchist/Self-Serving" PCs.
Those are crappy players.
Quote from: Elliot WilenPersonally I think I'd rather have the game the players want, but that's not the issue. Although I'll add that I'd like it even more if the GM made "villains", or rather strong NPCs factions with various motivations, and allowed the party the choice to get directly involved or operate in the "wake" of their actions. To me Cranewing's hit on a great paradigm for dynamic sandbox play even though it isn't his cup of tea.
And this is expressing the desire for a game with direction and a point to it, but that the PCs get to choose from several different directions and points. Which is a different thing to wanting no direction at all.
Boiling it down, what we get is three possible types of game,
- the adventure module - with one possible direction
- the sandbox - with several possible directions. The sandbox usually is not just sand, but has some toys in it to play with, and some shovels and things to build your own sandcastles. Effectively it's a dozen or more modules sitting around waiting to be picked up and played, some of them will be made up by the GM on the spot.
- the limbo - where you just wander around and do stuff but there's no point to any of it, nothing changes anything. AKA World of Warcraft.
The adventure module requires player co-operation, and a bit of GM work. The sandbox requires less player co-operation, but still some - and a
lot of GM work. The limbo requires neither player co-operation nor GM work.
I think it's fair for a GM to say that they're not really up to making a full sandbox, and are limited by time, interest, effort and imagination to just doing adventure modules. To say, "look guys, I've got the
Against the Giants module, so if you're happy fighting giants we can play this. If not then someone else can GM, because I don't have any other modules. But I think this one would be fun" - that's fair enough, and it's not railroading or illusionism or any other bollocks like that.
Usually people aren't running modules, but it's basically the same thing - they've created a single scenario for the players, and that's that. More energetic and imaginative GMs offer several possible scenarios.
But if the players are offered the equivalent of
Against the Giants and
The Lost Temple of Whateveritwascalled and
Temple of Elemental Evil and
Dragonlance Chronicles and half a dozen others and don't want to do
any of them, just wander, then those are crappy players.
Quote from: KingSpoom;273390Did you ever stop and ask yourself "Why am I rolling the die when something dumb could happen?" or does it only occur to you after you roll? It's almost the same thing. You'll roll the dice and they succeed, so they interupt the ritual. If they fail, it's dumb, and they interupt the ritual. The die roll is an illusion to cover the Drama resolution system you employ.
I do like the random results that can happen with a roll. I don't bother rolling a die if I want something particular to happen in a binary yes/no situation (or where one result would particular hamper gameplay). Outside of that, dice provide a nice gradient with a few results may land outside the range of believability or the scenario in question.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;273439Please don't use nonsensical, opaque jargon.
Drama resolution is when the GM (or whoever has the authority) decides the outcome of an action based upon whatever he thinks the will produce the best result. Depending upon the GM, it can be used all the time or rarely. Some people only have a problem with it when it's used in place of an existing system (ie I think interupting the ritual would be the better result, so they do)
Quote from: David R;273445Nah, if they fail they don't interupt the ritual. That's part of the game in role playing game. Why roll dice if all you wanted to do is tell a story ?
I agree. However, some people roll the dice even though the only result they would accept is one that interupts the ritual. I'm not sure what system everyone uses, but it seems like most systems have only 2 things happening for any given die roll: success and failure. A roll with more than 2 possible results is something I can see changing (although I don't believe I ever would).
Quote from: KrakaJak;273455I do like the random results that can happen with a roll. I don't bother rolling a die if I want something particular to happen in a binary yes/no situation (or where one result would particular hamper gameplay). Outside of that, dice provide a nice gradient with a few results may land outside the range of believability or the scenario in question.
What system do you use, if you don't mind?
Quote from: KingSpoom;273456I'm not sure what system everyone uses, but it seems like most systems have only 2 things happening for any given die roll: success and failure.
Not true. Most systems have
four possible results: balls-up, failure, success, triumph.
Many gamers' most memorable - good or bad - moments in sessions come from balls-up and triumphs of dice rolls; the halfling with the dagger decapitates the great golden dragon in one blow, the grand paladin with the greatsword decapitates
himself with a fumble, and so on.
Some systems have "degrees of success", or "performance levels", but since it's not always clear exactly how success by 2 ought to differ from success by 3, or a good performance from an excellent one, GMs must interpret the dice results. In practice they interpret them as one of the four basic possible results.
Quote from: KingSpoom;273456Drama resolution is when the GM (or whoever has the authority) decides the outcome of an action based upon whatever he thinks the will produce the best result.
Please say that instead of importing Forgisms as if they're accepted or commonly-understood jargon. ("Drama" as you use it is the product of a distortion of language from Everway.)
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;273453I read it, we must have just read it differently. From the brief bit he said, it basically seems that he wants adventures with some kind of direction and point to them, while they want to just wander around killing things and taking their stuff.
That's probably true, but now (in the rest of your post) you're mixing up individual adventures with the structure of a campaign as a whole--the way one scenario relates to the next.
QuoteBoiling it down, what we get is three possible types of game,
- the adventure module - with one possible direction
- the sandbox - with several possible directions. The sandbox usually is not just sand, but has some toys in it to play with, and some shovels and things to build your own sandcastles. Effectively it's a dozen or more modules sitting around waiting to be picked up and played, some of them will be made up by the GM on the spot.
- the limbo - where you just wander around and do stuff but there's no point to any of it, nothing changes anything. AKA World of Warcraft.
The adventure module requires player co-operation, and a bit of GM work. The sandbox requires less player co-operation, but still some - and a lot of GM work. The limbo requires neither player co-operation nor GM work.
You could have a series of
adventure modules in a
sandbox, where the players effectively get to choose which module comes next--although putting it this way obscures the range of degrees that the "next module" might be framed based on what's happened in earlier adventures. You could also have a series of
adventure modules where the GM just throws them at the players
one after another without much continuity at all. A third approach is to have a series of
adventure modules each of which is motivated and framed by an overall
storyline. It's this third that's a problem if the storyline comes from the GM and requires each module to lead in a particular direction in order to set up the next module, while the players prefer one of the other two approaches.
For players who want to have input into the overall direction of the campaign, the "GM storyline" approach obviously clashes with their desire to be able to choose the next module. For players who don't really care about an overall direction, but who still want to have a real impact in the individual adventures they play, the "GM storyline" approach will clash with their freedom of action, since it calls for each module to turn out the way the GM needs it to.
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 (http://sacha3791.livejournal.com/13070.html), "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.
Quote from: Imperator;273717For me it's like fudging dice. It's not necessary.
Fudging dice, by my lights, is pretty much
the definitive act of illusionism.
Quote from: Imperator;273717For me it's like fudging dice. It's not necessary.
What Imperator said.
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;273817Fudging dice, by my lights, is pretty much the definitive act of illusionism.
Except that as I said, players always know.
They may or may not know that a particular dice roll was fudged, or an encounter changed up or down in dangerousness, or an NPC they needed to talk to was teleported to where they are since they didn't go where they could have - but they know when the GM is fudging things.
There's no illusion. "Illusionism" supposes that adults watching
The Muppet Show don't know they're muppets.
I always roll my dice in front of the group. I don't mind that boss fights are sometimes less dramatic, and mook fights become epic. The honesty of it, I believe, makes the grandness of it much higher.
That said, I never kill a player character unless I had the encounter totally stated out ahead of time.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;274083Except that as I said, players always know.
They may or may not know that a particular dice roll was fudged, or an encounter changed up or down in dangerousness, or an NPC they needed to talk to was teleported to where they are since they didn't go where they could have - but they know when the GM is fudging things.
This presumes all players possess greater powers of perception than any GM possesses powers of deception, an assertion I believe to be untrue.
Quote from: Engine;274203This presumes all players possess greater powers of perception than any GM possesses powers of deception, an assertion I believe to be untrue.
Well, the thing is that there are more players than there are GMs. Simply by normal distribution of random amounts of perception, it's unlikely that the GM's deception will fool
all the players
everytime
. There'll be at least one perceptive one, or one moment of stumbling by the GM, and then the game is up. That observant player will mention it to the group, and once something is pointed out to you it's easy to spot. And once you see it happen once, you look for it happening again.
Which is why I say that they may not know that any particular instance is fudging things, but they'll know in general whether you're a big fudger or a small one.
The thing about a modern illusionist is that everyone in the audience
knows they're faking it - they just don't know how. An illusionist's show is not entertaining if you see how they did the trick (unless you're a fellow illusionist, I suppose). Whereas how a GM fools the players is a bit easier to figure out, it's just dice and charts and words.
There's no illusion in gaming, or not for long. Certainly not a whole campaign.
Yup the bastards always know or find out. The question is, how much fudging etc are they comfortable with ?
Regards,
David R
Usually, if things turn out interesting and fun the players will forgive anything.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;274270Well, the thing is that there are more players than there are GMs. Simply by normal distribution of random amounts of perception, it's unlikely that the GM's deception will fool all the players everytime. ... There's no illusion in gaming, or not for long. Certainly not a whole campaign.
I would agree it's highly unlikely for a GM who uses a great deal of illusionism to be able to do so undetected over a long period of time. The less it's used, the more subtly it's used, the more skilled at concealment the GM might be, the blinder the players are, and the briefer the period of gaming, the less likely such detection will occur.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;274275Usually, if things turn out interesting and fun the players will forgive anything.
And this is the important bit. You can fudge every roll, and if your players have a good time, it doesn't matter. I personally prefer that the finger on the scales be a light one, and seldom-used, and well-hidden, but I do think it's an essential part of getting the most out of your gaming experience. Everyone has a different tolerance for it; the only important thing is finding the tolerance your group possesses.
Remember the Forger definition:-
"A family of Techniques in which a GM, usually in the interests of story creation, story creation, exerts Force over player-character decisions, in which he or she has authority over resolution-outcomes, and in which the players do not necessarily recognize these features."
Various other terms and the various discussions of illusionism make it clear that "do not necessarily" means "do not". It's railroading behind a curtain the players don't know is there.
If the players know you're fudging things or forcing them along a certain path, then it's not "illusionism". If the "tolerance" of the players for your fudging and forcing comes into it, your illusion has failed.
It's just more Forger nonsense that is really not an issue, this "illusionism".
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;274341If the players know you're fudging things or forcing them along a certain path, then it's not "illusionism".
That doesn't mean illusionism doesn't exist, because it is by no means certain that the players
will know things are being fudged. Again, if you do it a lot, if you're not subtle about it, or if you're not very good at it, or your players are very perceptive, or you're doing it over a long period, the probabilities start to stack up and the illusion can break down, but prior to that breakdown, illusionism exists. It's not as if the first time you fudge a die roll behind your GM screen, some player will instantly and inevitably cry out, "Foul illusionist! Your reign of terror has ended!"
Yes, that's why I said right in the beginning. They won't always know any particular instance of fudging or railroading, but they'll clue onto it pretty quickly if you do it more often. Two sessions, maybe three if each player brings a sixpack and drinks it all.
So it's not a "family of techniques", it's just the GM fooling themselves that the players are fooled.
Every GM fudges and sometimes forces things along. And every player knows GMs do this. Again, that doesn't mean players psychically know the true result of every dice roll the GM made, it just means they know when the GM is someone who rarely fudges and forces, or does it all routinely.