Quote from: Sommerjon;924811That's the crux of the whole thing.
Illusionism vs Zero Prep comes down to Zero Preppers claiming to have thought of everything before the choice.

That's not at all verifiable either. There is at least conceptually a difference.

What Asen is describing is not exactly what I would call zero prep.  It's just initial prep is just enough to get started, and prep continues simultaneous to play, so you don't ever have to log a bunch of prep time in your lonely writers garret between sessions. And so there is practically zero observable prep time.

Emphasis on observable because there is a difference between observation and perception. The latter may include the benefits of insight. This is key because a common theme I'm seeing with the "ain't no difference" crowd is to demonstrate that there is no difference in terms of what the players can observe. And then, without even articulating such, it makes a leap in logic by implying that therefore the players cannot perceive any difference. Asen mentioned a player in his group who uses illusionism and thus has the insight to easily perceive when its used despite a lack of observable evidence. That's one example, and it only takes once example to prove there is in fact a difference.

Of course, Asen could be lying about this fictitious player. It goes back to we have no way of verifying shit people say on the internet. So you can also call me a liar if I said my profession is one whose very nature calls upon me to constantly getting to the bottom of peoples true motivations, even though it's not something directly observable.

And Knights of the Dinner Table is a work of fiction, so you can deny that as well, but it certainly speaks to the culture, and is a strong indicator that Asen and myself are not alone in the gaming community believing that players are quite capable of reading between the lines.

So the story goes, BA is preparing an adventure. And he's paying especially attention to dungeon ecology. After all, if that's off, someone might be blind-sided by a large wizard's tower or something that they feel they should have detected due its obvious need for waste disposal. In fact, BA comes up with a solution for waste disposal. A sphere of annihilation does the trick. But he doesn't want to kill off the party. So he locates it down a deep shaft. And just to make sure they don't wander right into it, he even looks up their character sheets, adds up all their rope, 240 feet total, and places it out of reach, 250 feet down. So there's no way this will kill them.

Well, actual play comes, and the group comes upon the shaft, and they wish to explore it. They tie their rope together and lower the first one down (I think it was Bob), he goes down 240 feet and sees the shaft still continues. At this point, the players become suspicious. Their insight tells them that the GM doesn't want them finding out what's down there. There's nothing observable about that in a 250 foot shaft. But it happens to be true, and the players know it. Where they go wrong is to assume the GM is trying to screw them out of treasure by deliberately placing it further down than he knows he has rope. Brian does some rules lawyering and figures a way to extend their rope. Then one by one they climb down into the sphere of annihilation. And of course, this is all the GM's fault. He's accused of some sort of clever railroading to their doom.

So the story hits on most of the major themes in this thread. But I hope the take away from reading the comic is clear. Yes, players can commonly infer things beyond observable evidence. So yes, there is a difference. Players will know it. But another moral is, having a dickish attitude in assuming the GM is trying to put one over on you will always lead to the annihilation of your fun, possibly the character, and maybe even the group.

Quote from: Lunamancer;924892That's not at all verifiable either. There is at least conceptually a difference.

Zero Preppers needed a villain so we get; Illusionism (another usurpation of a term btw), and a villain is born.

Quote from: Bren;924822Me. And some other people who aren't you.

It's a figure of speech used to convey...oh, never mind.

QuoteThere is a fundamental difference (pun intended) between

1. There is no difference.

and

2. There is a difference, but I don't care about the difference.

I did say they were functionally the same, I think. Is this thing on? Meaning, in the example given, where the Wizards Tower is no big deal, moving it is no big deal. In your subsequent examples where the wizard tower takes on a greater role in the imaginary world, with a huge sphere of influence and the players have decided to go North to avoid it and the GM is a dickwad, sure, moving it is problematic. But, I think GMs, at least some of them, are able to discriminate between things that they move without much effect and things that are already established. And they're able to place both kinds of things in their world.

You seem to see GMing to be either fully mapped out with everything firmly defined, or completely random and whimsical. It's just not the case. Sometimes, a wizards tower is just a wizards tower.

QuoteIn case my English was unclear, if it is a big wizard in the tower, then even several days travel from the tower they are already in the influence. You asked for a difference. That is a difference.

Sure, the GM probably shouldn't move a massive piece of their world if it will disturb everything else they've built. OK. But, can we go back to the case I was commenting on.

QuoteI don't need to. I understood it the first time. Your unprepped tower has to ignore any prior notice or information of the tower – since you just invented it.

Actually, it wasn't just invented in the example. It was on the map and then moved from north to south. There's a difference. Sheesh!

If you put the tower in the south and then the players heard a bunch of rumors and information during play, it's not a great candidate for moving, I'll grant you.

I bought a chunk of FFG Star Wars stuff last spring and set up one, that's ONE session of Edge of the Empire. The scenario was a sort of Star Wars dungeon crawl through an abandoned and critter infested mining complex, dozens of kilometers across, hundreds of meters deep etc. Huge Place.

There was no way I was going to map all that after some consideration decided, as they goal was more or less a hunt for a specific item, to run it as a set of linked encounters. There was a chance of getting lost, random stuff too of course, but essentially there were 20 or so scenes that they players would wander through, it really didn't matter where they chose to go (up the ladder, down the vent shaft or through the busted security door for example) they would end up in one of those 20 scenes to be dealt with or avoided then move on. The players had a 'map' but not a physical one, instead it gave directions toward parts of the mine (maintenance section, control room, conveyor control hub, droid storage etc.) which correlated with the scenes they might encounter if they chose to go that general way.

I thought it was an efficient way to run the game and it turned out great. We had a ball, 8 hours of steady play through the endless corridors and maintenance shutes before facing the big nasty critter at the end with a gaggle of Stormtroopers thrown in as their presence at the off limits site was discovered.

After the game though, during the typical post game debrief, one of our new players asked about the map to the place. "It must be huge!" I told him it didn't exist. The game was a series of scenes I had established and walked them through. The guy came unhinged! "What? You mean there is no mine, its just a bunch of bullshit encounters you put us through?" I mean he was really upset. The other players kind of stared in wonder, like what was this guys problem. A few minutes before he had been swearing it was one of the best games he had ever taken part in. To make a long story short he left pissed and has never come back. He used the same 'illusionist' term I hear in this forum regularly several times in is ranting. My other players and I were sort of speechless, good riddance I guess. We had a great time.

That's the thing about this whole debate. Its perceived so differently by each individual, or each camp I suppose. My players were aware of how the game was structured 30 minutes in. They know how I operate and could see the sort of linked encounter mechanic readily, but didn't care... no more than that they supported it. They saw it as an effective way to present this huge sprawling complex and as long as there was an 'illusion' of free choice and navigation, they were fine. "Get one with the story!"  The new player though believed he had been fooled somehow, that somehow what he had been enjoying for nearly 8 hours had been a lie, like finding out your rollercoaster ride was a simulator instead of the real thing when its over. My response would be.."So what! Was it a fun ride?" while it was a deal killer for him.

Its a pointless argument. Neither side is ever going to be swayed and in the end, I guess it really doesn't matter. Many of us will never subject ourselves to a "pull it out of arse" GM and others cant stand the thought of a "Railroading" GM so we aren't likely to be playing in each others games anyway, at least not more than once. Enjoy your hobby in the way that fits you best, but try to refrain from raining shit down on others that feel differently. That's all I would ask.

Quote from: rgrove0172;924962Its a pointless argument. Neither side is ever going to be swayed and in the end, I guess it really doesn't matter. Many of us will never subject ourselves to a "pull it out of arse" GM and others cant stand the thought of a "Railroading" GM so we aren't likely to be playing in each others games anyway, at least not more than once. Enjoy your hobby in the way that fits you best, but try to refrain from raining shit down on others that feel differently. That's all I would ask.

The point your missing is that you've created, as you frequently do, a false dichotomy.  I prefer a prepped campaign and a railroad-free environment because as a player I want to live or die, succeed or fail, by the choices of my character.  (No offense to Asen, Jibba or any of the other "Lighting Round Preppers" but my experience with GMs who think they got it covered with little prep, usually don't, but I just let it slide.)

In that EotE game, you said you had a gigantic complex with 20 scenes...  
1. Did you run all those 20 scenes?  
2. Were there any scenes the group could have missed in their exploration?
3. Was the order of the scenes set, random, or random with a few key scenes?

See, that player thought his choices mattered.  He thought that they played well, they didn't get randomly lost, they didn't fail to figure out how the transportation system worked or how to get places, he thought that his character, succeeded despite a chance of failure.  Now obviously, he could have died in combat, etc... so the fights were real (or knowing you maybe not), but the rest was not.  So, to his mind, you took that accomplishment from him.

Once, you do that, once you break that trust that the characters are accomplishing things on their own, then their choices don't matter.  Left, Right, Up, Down - who cares, Grove will get us there.
Reactivate the Reactor first or see if there's anything we need to check - Nah, if something else needed to be done we would have encountered that before now.

The players retain their agency on a micro-level, in combat (maybe) but they completely lose their agency on a larger level because...
No matter what they do, the overall story remains the same.

Some people like that.  Personally, I don't want a "GM as Storyteller".  Yes, a GM is an MC, worldbuilder, storyteller, all of the above, but what I want is a referee.  Someone to interpret the rules that need interpreting, to Roleplay the World and keep his thumbs off the scales.

Now personally, I've never seen ANYONE play a Star Wars game without some genre conventions in the system, so to me any SW game is going to be too narrative for IC-POV Roleplaying, so I might have fun in your game.  I'm sure there would be a hiccup now and then, but if I know going in what the deal is, then there's no problem.  It's the Big Reveal that leads to the feel of being cheated.

Quote from: rgrove0172;924962...
Its a pointless argument. Neither side is ever going to be swayed and in the end, I guess it really doesn't matter. Many of us will never subject ourselves to a "pull it out of arse" GM and others cant stand the thought of a "Railroading" GM so we aren't likely to be playing in each others games anyway, at least not more than once. Enjoy your hobby in the way that fits you best, but try to refrain from raining shit down on others that feel differently. That's all I would ask.

Seems to me people are trying to explain what they find interesting about non-improv non-railroad, and what the differences are, because the players who don't mind improv and railroads so often seem to not understand.

Seems to me that railroad is a bit like thinking you're playing Poker or Blackjack, and the dealer is actually playing magic tricks.

Improv is not like that, unless the GM doesn't know/care or doesn't detect the way he's rigging events.

If you want to play a game about actually exploring an existing world and being able to interact with it, then railroad is not that, and improv can have some issues and limitations, or at least differences from a prepped/mapped play mode.

Quote from: Noclue;924958It's a figure of speech used to convey...that I don't understand other people have different points of view.

Fixed that for you.

QuoteI did say they were functionally the same, I think. Is this thing on?

You did. They aren’t. The thing that isn’t on…that’s your brain. A class in logic might help. Or maybe coffee and at least 10th Grade Reading level?

QuoteMeaning, in the example given, where the Wizards Tower is no big deal, moving it is no big deal.

It is no big deal to you. We’ve agreed on that. Not being a big deal does not make it functionally the same. I don’t know why you and a couple of others seem unable to differentiate between the two.The lack of functional similarity is obvious to the GM. (That it is also sometimes obvious to the players and sometimes not obvious is irrelevant to the method and function being different.) Your understanding of logic and that way cause and effect work in our universe are both sadly lacking.

QuoteIn your subsequent examples where the wizard tower takes on a greater role in the imaginary world, with a huge sphere of influence and the players have decided to go North to avoid it and the GM is a dickwad

I didn’t have an example quite like that. And really I don’t need one.

QuoteBut, I think GMs, at least some of them, are able to discriminate between things that they move without much effect and things that are already established. And they're able to place both kinds of things in their world.

Which is why I said, YOU don’t care about the difference. You just agreed there IS a difference. Despite all your earlier nonsense about not seeing a difference.

QuoteYou seem to see GMing to be either fully mapped out with everything firmly defined, or completely random and whimsical.

No. I just understand and admit that there is a difference between

   1)   The players encounter Ye Olde Wizard’s Tower because they chose to go in a direction that leads to Ye Olde Wizard’s Tower;

and

2)   The players encounter Ye Olde Wizard’s Tower regardless of their choice and based solely on the GM wanting them to encounter Ye Olde Wizard’s Tower.


That you seem unable to admit that there is a difference when you clearly recognize that there is a difference is bizarre.

Quote from: Noclue;924958Sure, the GM probably shouldn't move a massive piece of their world if it will disturb everything else they've built. OK. But, can we go back to the case I was commenting on.

Quote from: Noclue;924958Actually, it wasn't just invented in the example. It was on the map and then moved from north to south. There's a difference. Sheesh!

Actually no in Asen’s example the tower was not on a GM’s map.

In his example of how he GM’s, Asen created the tower more or less contemporaneous (oh sorry I forgot < 10th grade)…In Asen’s example, he created the tower to the north and the bandits and the swamp and whatever the fourth thing was outside of town just before he spoke aloud to the players to tell them there were three ways (and the swamps) that they could take out of town. Asen doesn’t use actual maps much. The maps-a-lot guy is Skarg.

Let me try an analogy strawberry ice cream and chocolate ice-cream are different flavors of ice cream. (They taste different, they have different ingredients e.g. strawberries or cocoa, etc. We can all agree that they are different…right?

Now some people like strawberry and chocolate ice-cream equally. So for some of those people, they would be just as happy, i.e. they wouldn’t care, if you gave them a dish of strawberry ice-cream or a dish of chocolate ice-cream. But the two flavors are still different. They just don’t mind if you [strike]move the damn tower around[/strike] give them one flavor instead of the other flavor.

You might even find a person who has some odd mutation that makes strawberry and chocolate ice-cream taste the same to that person. Kind of like how some people are red-green colorblind and cannot differentiate between some reds and greens. (I don’t know if such a mutation for tasting exists, but this is an analogy anyway. So pretend.) So for that person, strawberry and chocolate taste the same.

That still doesn’t make strawberry and chocolate ice-cream the same. Because they are different and that is easily shown by (a) feeding them to a person who is able to differentiate the taste of the two flavors, (b) reading the ingredients list on the package of ice-cream, or (c) a chemical analysis of the ice-cream.

Quote from: Bren;924967No. I just understand and admit that there is a difference between
1) The players encounter Ye Olde Wizard’s Tower because they chose to go in a direction that leads to Ye Olde Wizard’s Tower;
and
2) The players encounter Ye Olde Wizard’s Tower regardless of their choice and based solely on the GM wanting them to encounter Ye Olde Wizard’s Tower.

Not trying to jump in the middle of this one, but...to be fair, he did say that there was a difference, just not necessarily an effective difference.
Anyway, here's my interpretation of his posts giving him the benefit of the doubt...

• If the tower was established somewhere...it shouldn't be moved.
• If its placement will affect the campaign in a broader context...it shouldn't be moved.
• If the characters specifically are trying to avoid it...it shouldn't be moved.
• If it really doesn't matter one way or the other, and the characters don't even know about it...why not?

Phrased this way, I can't really argue with it too much.

Although, the original idea was not moving it, but placing it to begin with, but I think the same criteria apply, namely "effect on the existing campaign".  If it doesn't really affect anything else outside of itself, then messing with it isn't a value judgement.  Not my thing, but I can see the argument.

Quote from: CRKrueger;924965So, to his mind, you took that accomplishment from him.

Clearly this type of a sense of accomplishment is not what RGrove and Co. play for and he seems to really not be able to grasp that some people want the chance for that sense of accomplishment in addition to (and even at times instead of) a feeling of "fun session," "cool adventure," "nice story," or "wow, that was exciting."

Another Analogy: When I catch the ball in a game of catch I don't have the same sense of accomplishment I get when I catch a fly ball in a softball game for an out. Saying "but both times you caught the ball" displays a fundamental misunderstanding of catch, softball, and human motivation. And the fact that a game of catch and a game of softball are different, doesn't somehow make playing catch not fun.

Quote from: CRKrueger;924970Not trying to jump in the middle of this one, but...to be fair, he did say that there was a difference, just not necessarily an effective difference.
Anyway, here's my interpretation of his posts giving him the benefit of the doubt...

• If the tower was established somewhere...it shouldn't be moved.
• If its placement will affect the campaign in a broader context...it shouldn't be moved.
• If the characters specifically are trying to avoid it...it shouldn't be moved.
• [1]If it really doesn't matter one way or the other, and the characters don't even know about it...why not?
  

[2] Phrased this way, I can't really argue with it too much.

Although, the original idea was not moving it, but placing it to begin with, but I think the same criteria apply, namely "effect on the existing campaign".  If it doesn't really affect anything else outside of itself, then messing with it isn't a value judgement.  Not my thing, but I can see the argument.

It is possible that I am reading NoClue uncharitably. It might have helped to include the caveats in their first claim of "no difference."

Regarding your reasonable attempt at being reasonable, I added bracket numbers to make it easier to see exactly what I was responding to.

[1] "why not?"

Because the GM may be mistaken in his assessment and because there is a better way of running such things if the GM is not mistaken.


[2] "I can't really argue with it too much."

Can't argue with it in what sense?

• That they are different?
• That you as a player wouldn't mind the change in tower location?
• That you as a player wouldn't notice the change in tower location?

They clearly are different. The degree to which people care about the difference varies a lot. The degree to which people notice the difference varies a lot.

In regards to the "why not?", if the tower's location is completely irrelevant to play then I have to ask the GM, why did you put the damn thing on a map in the first place? Earlier in this thread I mentioned that one could turn the tower into what is in effect almost a wandering encounter by not placing the tower on the map in the first place. If the location doesn't matter you should be able to do that. If there is some reason that you can't do that, then I bet the tower's location does matter.

Why not make it a special encounter instead of a map item?

Possible Answers:
1)   Gosh I never thought of not putting it on the map.
Hey you learned something new today and now you have a new GM tool you can use. Also welcome to 1981.

2)   Well I wanted the Wizard's Tower on the map...for reasons.
Then maybe those reasons may have an effect you are not considering in the moment when you decide to move the tower. Or maybe your reasons for putting a tower on the map were lame. In either case, you might want to think more about your reasons the next time you are thinking of placing something on your GM map and consider whether that thing belongs on a map or on an encounter table.

Quote from: Headless;924851The one thing I hate worse than having a giant wizards tower sneak up on me.  Is having the DM whip out an ill conceived "reason" why I didn't see it coming. It all falls apart at that point.

Never seen a tower in a naturally lower part of the ground? I have.

Less seriously, now I want to make a Helloween one-shot where the murderer is a sneaky tower;).

Quote from: Headless;924853Most of the people I play with are new, so they don't know enough to make meaningful choices.  So I don't give them choices.  At least to start.  Course this is all worked out and part of the deal when we agree to play.   After a short intro, 3 sessions?  One completed adventure, the rails come off and they can choose their own path.  

This is wandering off topic a bit.  Never mind.

Well, a more "guided" (or sometimes, outright railroaded) beginning of a campaign is a time-honoured tradition. It helps to avoid dithering until the players get used to the characters and are able to formulate goals.
I prefer just mixing the new players with older ones, though. It achieves the same with more choice.

Quote from: DavetheLost;924855Yes, the setting is quite different to what we have available in the modern world. It is a fantasy setting with few high level mages, most of whom have better things to do with their time than make and sell detailed maps.

The characters are from a small backwater village, where much like rural villages today many people live there whole lives without travelling much farther than the next town over. This is why information available to them becomes rapidly unreliable more than a few days journey away. The places on the map are the ones the PCs have been to, learned about from others, or heard of in legends and old tales. As they travel or talk to travellers they get to update their map with better information.

The places initially on the map give them some possible adventure hooks. Travelling to the place usually allows me to toss in an encounter or two along the way that slows play down enough for me to have a solid idea of what they find when they get there.

Low prep, but not zero prep.

Excellent summary!

QuoteAnd much better than trying to detail every hex on the map before play...  Yes, I tried that when I was young and foolish. Along with detailing every building in a city.

Wow, man...you deserve some kind of prize. I don't know what it would be, but I'm sure you do!

QuoteNote that this method would not work for every GM, nor do I use it for every campaign I run. Some by their nature need more advanced prep. A planet hopping Sci-Fi game like Traveller for example I would generate the map and world profiles for at least a subsector, even if I didn't further detail the systems until the players announced where they were going next session. In that sort of setting it makes little sense for there not to be a fairly accurate starchart and basic star system information available to anyone who asks for it.

I'm pretty sure I mentioned "a fantasy setting". Traveller is space opera. It would be different in the modern world, too...but even as far back as 19th century, there might be quite a bit of wilderness.

Quote from: Skarg;924858I guess you mean that old maps were rough, and you're thinking I mean I show the players the real world maps?

That's my understanding of your post. Apologies if I've misunderstood you, but you spoke about players making accurate assumptions from the maps - not a word about misleading maps...

QuoteYes, and medieval maps were usually much more crude and not spatially accurate, even when someone was literate and any map was actually had by anyone. Often people were lucky to even have a list of what towns and landmarks were along the route from A to B, and people would just ask all along the way which way to go, and/or remember from having gone before.

Indeed.

QuoteI (and my friends with a TFT background, where we got the first notions of how to do this) map out a world generally on hex paper with all terrain listed, accurately, but never show the actual world maps to the players.

Well, that part is what I do, too.
Once again - it's about exploring a place that is there. It could have a map. You just don't have a cartographer that could get you anything resembling a decent map.

QuoteThe players, if/when they have a map and a PC who can understand it, get what we call a "special effect" - a map that represents an actual map in the world, which is often a bit stylized rather than trying to really match the item, more or less depending on the time the GM wanted to put into it. The players' maps will not be complete or accurate by a long shot, often are not on hex paper and may be abstract or were made for certain purposes. The players can try to make their own maps from information and experience they gain during play, or as part of their PCs' backgrounds. And/or they can try to find or commission maps from NPCs.

Oh, really? Never played TFT, but I've done that, too.
(I stopped by player request. My players like exact maps, so they threatened to tear the next inexact one in my head. I felt outnumbered - and given that one of them is my Most Important Player, I didn't want to escalate:p).

QuoteTo me, maps seem only limiting in the way actual space is limiting (the GM can't just warp in stuff at whim if they already established something else should be there), and to me they make a world seem much more real and believable than worlds without actual maps being used.

There's a difference between not having a map, and not having a map in your head. Did you think I can't visualize the setting?
I can, in exacting detail (according to some players: with too much fucking details). I just can't draw, so it remains in my head. Sometimes, I use random generators until I get something that's close, and then show it to the players as "the map".
And yes, I know it's a substitute at best - luckily, I haven't had to do that in a while.

QuoteIt seems to me that's just a GM style and/or thinking/familiarity difference.  You're used to improv and it works for you. I'm used to maps and notes.

Again, I improvise on the basis of a setting. It can have maps, but drawing them would totally defeat the "no-prep" idea.
(That's, of course, assuming we're not playing in a setting that has maps. If I use a published setting, which I often do, there's probably a map, everyone has seen it, we can carry on. Add to it that I often play in historical settings, and the lack of map becomes more of a "gentlemen agreement": we don't look at the map, and the GM describes to the best of his ability;)).

QuoteAgain, ya that's what you're used to and have chosen to use and practice, while I am used to and prefer to have maps.

Indeed.
But how will we live unless we explain to each other how wrong the other party is:D?

QuoteFrom that perspective, there are ways to prove that, because if players grill the GM with investigations and request for maps and techniques that use the geography, then the GM either needs to tell them that's out of scope, or if he's a mapless improv GM, have to provide or refuse the level of consistency they expect. If the players are mapping what their PCs see and get told, the GM had better be able to keep up with their notes or else they will prove that the GM isn't doing so. The only way it would be "unprovable" would be to not tell them you're improv-ing everything, and also be able to not get caught improv-ing or refusing to supply such details.

No problem with providing them, actually. I just don't provide them readily. The Great Geographic Discoveries were great for a reason: it was damned hard to achieve them.
And well, I've never played with a group that was interested in mapping out an unmapped part of the setting. So that's never come up.

QuoteOur style and interest of play developed largely in response to players developing more intelligent ways of using the world's consistency and details. It became clear that as GMs this was interesting and challenging and fun/rewarding to supply, and that it worked for us to make nice maps and think about what was going on on them, etc. Some of it too was noticing what happens when a smart curious PC asks detailed questions and the GM tries to improvise answers - it some situations it really helps the more the GM has pre-thought about things.

It all depends on the group, doesn't it? My players prefer to follow the money trails, or similar, and not the trails in a forest.

QuoteAgain, I think this just points to differences in our styles and players. You've found an improv mention that is nicely thoughtful and is able to consider to your satisfaction (and your players') things so that they are consistent and detailed and don't cause problems. Cool. You probably have refined that well enough, and effectively end up with a similar ability that matches your players habits, so that no weird incongruous things are noticed (except when they are, as in the experiment you mentioned).

Sorry-which experiment? The illusionist example? That had nothing to do with a physical map.
The wizard tower? All details fit with how I imagined it.

QuoteYour method is sort of backwards from mine in one sense, but it has similar respect for cause & effect and avoiding railroads and shell games and meaninglessness, and providing a world where players can work with descriptions and make meaningful informed choices. Cool.

Yeah, that's the whole idea - meaning, stuff doesn't pop up because you went there, but because it was where it should have been. Backwards or forwards, who cares?
(Or rather - well, if enough people cared, I might try to switch to a sixth style of using games. But as it happens, I don't need to).

QuoteBy backwards, I mean that you realize your established concept or chart of the world has you limit what you improvise. I basically do the same thing except I establish a mapped geography and bunches of details sooner than you do. But I still also work minor details in where needed in the same direction you do. Just for me, if the map doesn't show it, new stuff will almost always be a detail consistent with what is shown. So I too might blink up a _small_ low-impact wizard, always in a place I haven't detailed without one already, and outside the range that players might've had some clue about it.

Same here. It will always be consistent with what was shown...or it's a good idea to check why it's not. Such discrepancies have been known for getting deadly.

QuoteI wasn't meaning your exact description. Although looking now, I'd quibble that you didn't mention the growth on the road before they already clumsily chose to take it.

That's a difference in how I was explaining it - but what I was imagining was that the growth doesn't start until a few kilometers on the road.
(Until then, I imagined people from nearby villages are using it, the way we use a highway now - but then they swerve right or left, and go on small tropes).
Tracking checks would have revealed that, BTW.

QuoteI was imagining a similar situation in a mapped game - if the tower road is overgrown and presumably eating most travellers,

Bwahaha. It's not. It's just an acid-sprinkling demon that works for the wizard!
(No, I'm not thinking this up now - I had thought about it when describing the spots).
Again, suitable tests would have shown that much. My players are nice, kind souls, with quite a bit of OOC knowledge of chemistry for reasons of education - so they would have thought of something, I'm sure.

Quotethen I would expect that the PC's would notice the growth well before they got to the tower, and I would think there would be chances before they got to the crossroads someone might've warned them about it,

Again, the crossroad is a city.
Now remember, this was a hypothethical example - but there's a good reason to assume they didn't bother to ask what's near the city and/or that they had to leave in a hurry. (PCs needing to leave in a hurry? When has that happened?)
Why? Because if they had asked, I would have come up with the "bandits, wizard tower, or roll on the table" that much sooner, possibly in a previous session (their question would shift the time when it becomes relevant).
Details wouldn't have changed, either (unless they have changed or were wrong for IC reasons) - I'd have taken a note afterwards about what was revealed, and what wasn't revealed, but I had decided it. Because here Apocalypse World is right in instructing the GM to "say what honesty demands".

Since they didn't have such info, we can safely conclude that they neither bothered to ask, nor have they mentioned planning to leave in front of a friendly local NPC.
(Maybe they had plans for the city and having to leave was a nasty surprise? Maybe it was simply halfway through the first session?
Frankly, I don't know. I haven't thought up the whole campaign just for the sake of an example in the forum, so either one is possible! I suspect it was simply one of the first sessions, and they were doing relatively well, or thought they were doing well, until an enemy stopped smiling at them and started a PC-hunt!)

Quoteand of course a cautious observant party asking for directions and info all along the way would have been either told of it, or only told of other places along the other roads, so they'd be thinking "Hmm, no one mentioned that overgrown road leading north here...".

Yes. See above: they hadn't done that.

QuoteAnd of course yes, since roads lead into one another, any time a road is deadly, stopping or unused, that means no traffic there so it affects whom you do and don't meet all along it. Which is a kind of detail that it seems to me is much more easy and natural to be something that automatically has an effect at longer distance and further ahead in time and more subtly, for a GM using a map and thinking in terms of a map, compared to a GM making up the geography as they go.

Here's the thing: when I make up the local geography, I'd know almost anything from the start of the road to the tower. While I was describing the outgrowth, I came up with 1) how far from the city it starts (about a league), the description of the dark spots, and their explanation (the two always go together - I never throw a detail without knowing what caused it).
While describing those, I came up with the idea for 1) the personality and powers of the wizard, 2) the description of the tower.
While describing that, I came up with 1) the wizard's enemies he's guarding against and 2) his allies.

QuoteHaving an established geography creates a context that allows for all sorts of subtle details and bits of info that are just a natural part of the water rather than having to think of them in terms of clues to significant stuff, too.

Yes, I agree. If you have been talking about geography, I would have agreed - but you started about maps, and I explained my reasons for not allowing them.
The difference is, Earth had a geography long before there were maps.

QuoteInformation travels along with travelers. Your wizard's tower with the overgrown road implies information isn't going up or down that road - probably the locals are scared and may even have forgotten the road. A different wizard's tower might instead be a source of information, because of added traffic from more worldly and traveled types, and/or because the wizard himself gets and shares more info than would otherwise be in the area.

See above why neither of these is the case, though.

QuoteIn that case in particular, the info in the area may be quite different, as the locals and travelers may know various things they would not if there were not a wizard there. That can have important effects, not just for when the PCs learn there's a wizard there, but also just for its own sake. Backwater A may have almost no interesting info, while backwater B near the chatty wizard has various gossip and news from far away.

But I didn't imagine him or her as chatty, just a bookish type that wants to be left alone. That wasn't in order to limit information, either. If I'd imagined the wizard differently, some details would have been different. Like, if he or she wanted non-demonic company, there could be people going to and from the tower.

QuoteAgain a player/playstyle difference, but your guarded travel-intercepting tower would affect the odds of certain travel encounters for days around, even if the party are oblivious.

It did. No brigands, for once, I didn't even consider those.

QuoteYes. You can improv those, unless there's an established reason not to. I enjoy using a map because it's a naturally appropriate way to store and to generate reasons for what is where and why. To me it's enjoyable and interesting and easier for the copious amount I prefer to pepare, to base it off an actual map, which builds up consistent context. Occult reasons can be located too. Reasons why locations are desirable are naturally geographic from my perspective. If a wizard owned it by luck 100 years ago, he's been affecting the region for 100 years... cool, more interrelated stuff to affect what's on the map...

Yes, that's possible, and I try to account for it. But I choose to do it more "theatre of the mind".
My wife would still get me if I tried to abuse that by replacing the setting's reality with the illusion of such, so I have a constant check to keep me honest:D!

QuoteCould be all sorts of things, which might or might not (in)directly impact or be observable by the PCs. That's why I like to have thought of them and have them on the map in advance. I love having a mapped world where I've thought of various levels of things going on, so I can have signs of them without having them be part of something directly about the PCs or their current concerns. Typically though, I like to think about all the major wizards and what their relationships are with the other powers, because it just makes for all sorts of various interesting stuff that leaves traces all around. Maps help all that.

If the major wizards are that powerful, they would be on my power relationship lists.
Since this one isn't there, the reverse also applies - that's not such a powerful wizard.

QuoteWell sure. I was just going with the example on the table, and explaining ways in which mapped prep can have effects at long range, largely for rgrove, and to point out that mapped prep is a different category and what I enjoy about it.

It is, but I just want to point out (also for rgrove) that the lack of a physical map doesn't mean the setting doesn't have a geography, and a map in the GM's head.

QuoteSure. It's really just a different way of PCs exploring your world, that requires you to improv further ahead. It just seems to me that having an actual GM map (not player map) helps mean you don't need to do improv nor manage its consistency, and it seems to me (for me anyway) it helps automatically suggest details about what PCs experience at longer range than if I didn't have a map. I feel more adrift and more likely to have weird nonsense if I have no map and/or haven't done some prep.

Depends on the scale. I almost definitely have a world map, maybe random generated, or scribbled on a sheet of paper - for no other reason than to keep me honest (old habits die hard, and all that). But are all wizards on it? They aren't.
Do I have a smaller-scale map of just the local area? Of course I do, but it's probably just in my head.

QuoteYeah I imagined your map differently. In a city, they could ask what's down each road. Unless they're fleeing or thoughtless.

Again, it was a made-up party in a made-up city. If they didn't ask, they were either careless, or in a hurry. (Though, to be honest, the reason they didn't have such information is simply that I wanted an example with maximum freedom to improvise. Besides, I would have to write out their info for you...and I didn't feel like it).

QuoteSure. Again, the difference between smart logical improv, and mapped prep.

What I call "smart logical improv" is the same I do while "setting building". I just do it in bite-sized chunks, while the PCs are walking around.

QuoteYa. One of the maps I gave my players once had a warning scrawled on it that said, "Use this map and you will surely die...". One may also want to consider why the map one finds is damaged and/or covered in blood stains and/or scorch marks.

Now you're talking about my kind of maps!

QuoteWell the issue is that I really like consistency and to be able to describe things I actually know something about from having already thought it through and hopefully mapped and detailed it out so that I like what I have to say and know it makes some sense. I don't want to commit to my world having or not having certain details or even entire nations or cultures that I haven't considered before.

And, while they're near the tower, I have the time to think about the nearest region and culture...

QuoteAnd I don't want to have my world change as I add up new stuff I hadn't thought of. It makes for a surreal experience and one that isn't as interesting or as satisfying to me. I also don't like the players to be easily able to find glaring edges to what I know about the world, unless we've agreed to limit the scope of play.

That's definitely not happening. And for the exact same reasons.

QuoteIf that had been true of the location, then ya they might have only seen some locals who might've fled. You're right that in many places it can be tricky to get information and not get into trouble especially as unprepared foreigners.

Well they were reacting according to what the people were like there, which was not so guarded. It was a fairly well-traveled road where it was not uncustomary to talk to people met along the road, so they were in luck and being more cautious than it turned out they needed to be. But they were wise to do so, as they had no idea where they were, having come through a magic gate with no indication where it had taken them.

Indeed.
Wait, magic gate? That answers my further questions! (Also, sorry if you'd mentioned it and I didn't notice. It happens, alas!)

Quote from: Lunamancer;924892That's not at all verifiable either. There is at least conceptually a difference.

What Asen is describing is not exactly what I would call zero prep.  It's just initial prep is just enough to get started, and prep continues simultaneous to play, so you don't ever have to log a bunch of prep time in your lonely writers garret between sessions. And so there is practically zero observable prep time.

You've got it;).
I avoid describing it that way, because it makes it sound needlessly complicated...but that's what it amounts to, yes.

QuoteEmphasis on observable because there is a difference between observation and perception. The latter may include the benefits of insight. This is key because a common theme I'm seeing with the "ain't no difference" crowd is to demonstrate that there is no difference in terms of what the players can observe. And then, without even articulating such, it makes a leap in logic by implying that therefore the players cannot perceive any difference. Asen mentioned a player in his group who uses illusionism and thus has the insight to easily perceive when its used despite a lack of observable evidence. That's one example, and it only takes once example to prove there is in fact a difference.

Indeed.

QuoteOf course, Asen could be lying about this fictitious player.

Lying about my wife? Man, I've got better self-preservation instincts than that;)!
Besides, I can do the same, and for much the same reason. She just catches up faster than me. Both of us would know it before the middle of the session, though.

QuoteIt goes back to we have no way of verifying shit people say on the internet. So you can also call me a liar if I said my profession is one whose very nature calls upon me to constantly getting to the bottom of peoples true motivations, even though it's not something directly observable.

Or we can call Headless a liar by claiming to be human. After all, he could conceivably be a headless ET from Alpha Centauri.
Or we could claim Rgrove is a liar by claiming to be a successful GM, and that he has never run a session since 1980, because nobody in his home city wants to play with him.
...or you know - we could just assume that most of us simply don't have the time to fabricate elaborate lies about what happens in their sessions, and agree that yes, human beings are quite capable of reading between the lines. It's a survival trait, after all!

QuoteSo the story hits on most of the major themes in this thread. But I hope the take away from reading the comic is clear. Yes, players can commonly infer things beyond observable evidence. So yes, there is a difference. Players will know it.

It's not "beyond observable evidence" - it's just something that most of us don't do consciously. But you know, claiming that we can only observe what we can directly see is...easily disproven.
A hunter knows there was a deer around without seeing it, because things leave traces simply by passing. A boxer knows you're going to punch him, and where, because what you're thinking about reflects in your body language.
If anyone's ancestors couldn't do that, they'd be dead, and that person wouldn't have been born. Today, we play with much lower stakes - it's a game to us. But we're using the same skills.

QuoteBut another moral is, having a dickish attitude in assuming the GM is trying to put one over on you will always lead to the annihilation of your fun, possibly the character, and maybe even the group.

Also true. But the problem is, to some of us illusionism leads, merely by being present, to the annihilation of the fun.

Quote from: rgrove0172;924962That's the thing about this whole debate. Its perceived so differently by each individual, or each camp I suppose. My players were aware of how the game was structured 30 minutes in. They know how I operate and could see the sort of linked encounter mechanic readily, but didn't care... no more than that they supported it. They saw it as an effective way to present this huge sprawling complex and as long as there was an 'illusion' of free choice and navigation, they were fine. "Get one with the story!"  The new player though believed he had been fooled somehow, that somehow what he had been enjoying for nearly 8 hours had been a lie, like finding out your rollercoaster ride was a simulator instead of the real thing when its over. My response would be.."So what! Was it a fun ride?" while it was a deal killer for him.

Its a pointless argument. Neither side is ever going to be swayed and in the end, I guess it really doesn't matter. Many of us will never subject ourselves to a "pull it out of arse" GM and others cant stand the thought of a "Railroading" GM so we aren't likely to be playing in each others games anyway, at least not more than once. Enjoy your hobby in the way that fits you best, but try to refrain from raining shit down on others that feel differently. That's all I would ask.

See, I wholeheartedly agree with the second paragraph I quoted.
The first quoted paragraph, however, proves something I've been advocating: it pays to explain to players your playstyle, before play begins. Then the only players that would join would be those that are fine with it. And if they join, it means at least tacit approval.
I do the same, because I want people to know what to expect. It helps limiting freakouts when a character dies to a stupid decision.

That's much like my example with the tower, now that I think of it - the made-up characters don't have info they could possibly have, because I didn't make them up with having it. And if they didn't have it, it means they haven't thought of actions actual human players might have taken, which would have revealed some info in advance.

Quote from: CRKrueger;924965The point your missing is that you've created, as you frequently do, a false dichotomy.  I prefer a prepped campaign and a railroad-free environment because as a player I want to live or die, succeed or fail, by the choices of my character.  (No offense to Asen, Jibba or any of the other "Lighting Round Preppers" but my experience with GMs who think they got it covered with little prep, usually don't, but I just let it slide.)

None taken - it's your preference, just like I don't care whether you have prepped or not.
I might invite you to a session if you pass by Sofia, but that would be a one-shot so we could have what to report on the forum;).

QuoteSee, that player thought his choices mattered.  He thought that they played well, they didn't get randomly lost, they didn't fail to figure out how the transportation system worked or how to get places, he thought that his character, succeeded despite a chance of failure.  Now obviously, he could have died in combat, etc... so the fights were real (or knowing you maybe not), but the rest was not.  So, to his mind, you took that accomplishment from him.

Once, you do that, once you break that trust that the characters are accomplishing things on their own, then their choices don't matter.  Left, Right, Up, Down - who cares, Grove will get us there.
Reactivate the Reactor first or see if there's anything we need to check - Nah, if something else needed to be done we would have encountered that before now.

The players retain their agency on a micro-level, in combat (maybe) but they completely lose their agency on a larger level because...
No matter what they do, the overall story remains the same.

Some people like that.  Personally, I don't want a "GM as Storyteller".  Yes, a GM is an MC, worldbuilder, storyteller, all of the above, but what I want is a referee.  Someone to interpret the rules that need interpreting, to Roleplay the World and keep his thumbs off the scales.

That, however, matters to me as well. And I believe I'm covering it adequately with my style.
If I come to believe I'm not, I'd have to start taking more time in preparation.

Quote from: Skarg;924966Seems to me people are trying to explain what they find interesting about non-improv non-railroad, and what the differences are, because the players who don't mind improv and railroads so often seem to not understand.

Seems to me that railroad is a bit like thinking you're playing Poker or Blackjack, and the dealer is actually playing magic tricks.

Improv is not like that, unless the GM doesn't know/care or doesn't detect the way he's rigging events.

If you want to play a game about actually exploring an existing world and being able to interact with it, then railroad is not that, and improv can have some issues and limitations, or at least differences from a prepped/mapped play mode.

Everything has issues and limitations. And everything, even rgrove's style, has some advantages.
Now, things that are an advantage for some people, would be a flaw for others...see the "agency" post, above.
But if I was going to an illusionist's game to relax after a hard day at work? I'd welcome this style! I can talk with friends, eat what I brought, pretend to be awesome, and only need to think during combat, if that.
It's just that, as it happens, that's not what I'm looking for. When I'm tired, I'd rather play backgammon.

Quote from: Bren;924967Actually no in Asen's example the tower was not on a GM's map.

In his example of how he GM's, Asen created the tower more or less contemporaneous (oh sorry I forgot < 10th grade)...In Asen's example, he created the tower to the north and the bandits and the swamp and whatever the fourth thing was outside of town just before he spoke aloud to the players to tell them there were three ways (and the swamps) that they could take out of town. Asen doesn't use actual maps much. The maps-a-lot guy is Skarg.

Yeah, that's me - though I must add, I've usually got a map. It's just hidden...because I can't draw.

Quote from: CRKrueger;924970Not trying to jump in the middle of this one, but...to be fair, he did say that there was a difference, just not necessarily an effective difference.
Anyway, here's my interpretation of his posts giving him the benefit of the doubt...

• If the tower was established somewhere...it shouldn't be moved.
• If its placement will affect the campaign in a broader context...it shouldn't be moved.
• If the characters specifically are trying to avoid it...it shouldn't be moved.
• If it really doesn't matter one way or the other, and the characters don't even know about it...why not?

Phrased this way, I can't really argue with it too much.

I'd agree with everything but the last point.

Quote from: Bren;924967Fixed that for you.

Actually, I was being dismissive of your views not oblivious to them. There's a difference.

QuoteIt is no big deal to you. We’ve agreed on that. Not being a big deal does not make it functionally the same.

Fine, let's say I regard the difference in the case I specified to be a de minimis. De minimis non curat praetor.

Quote1)   The players encounter Ye Olde Wizard’s Tower because they chose to go in a direction that leads to Ye Olde Wizard’s Tower;

and

2)   The players encounter Ye Olde Wizard’s Tower regardless of their choice and based solely on the GM wanting them to encounter Ye Olde Wizard’s Tower.


That you seem unable to admit that there is a difference when you clearly recognize that there is a difference is bizarre.

I think I've said that if the GM's decision is overriding a player choice it's problematic. If the player is just deciding to go North, without any consideration of the possibility of Towers, the GM hasn't blocked or undermined their choice by populating the world with Towers and other locales. That's the GMs role. The players knew the job was dangerous when they took it.

QuoteActually no in Asen’s example the tower was not on a GM’s map.

I apologize to Aden if I misconstrued his tower

QuoteThat still doesn’t make strawberry and chocolate ice-cream the same. Because they are different and that is easily shown by (a) feeding them to a person who is able to differentiate the taste of the two flavors, (b) reading the ingredients list on the package of ice-cream, or (c) a chemical analysis of the ice-cream.

In so far as taste there's no perceived difference for that person. In that one regard, you could say there's no functional difference. In other words, the difference doesn't have much effect. However, their body will still be reacting differently to the nutrients they just ate, so there will be very significant differences on their biochemistry. The analogy works fine as to taste, but it's not a very apt one otherwise.

Quote from: Noclue;924988Actually, I was being dismissive of your views not oblivious to them. There's a difference.

Oh you flatterer.

QuoteFine, let's say I regard the difference in the case I specified to be a de minimis. De minimis non curat praetor.

Now if only you had studied logic instead of Latin we wouldn't have had to waste so many words to get to agreement that the two things are in fact different, but that you see the difference as trivial because it is not a difference that you care about.

QuoteIn so far as taste there's no perceived difference for that person. In that one regard, you could say there's no functional difference.

for that one person you could say it. But the example of the GM tower switching does not involve just one person.

When the tower is switched, one person (the GM) knows the tower was switched. The players may know. They may not. The players may care. They may not. The GM may realize the players know and care. The GM may realize neither. GMs who like to switch towers about frequently believe that their players don't know and that even if they did know they wouldn't care. But in practice, as we have seen in a number of examples, even one by the original illusionism proponent RGrove - GMs are often wrong about whether or not players know or care.

But even if we narrow the vague original example to include all the caveats you've added, at the end of the day, the outcome of switching the tower is different than the outcome where the tower isn't switched. At least one person knows the switch occurred because the GM knows they pulled Ye Olde Switcheroo. And as the GM I care even if other people don't. If for no other reason than the old switcheroo is a lazy and aesthetically displeasing way to GM that is prone to being misused.

Now I get that you don't care that I care. And really I don't care that you don't care that I care. I just get tired of listening to nitwits claim that different things are the same or that the same things are different. Even when the nitwits know some Latin.

Quote from: Bren;924978Can't argue with it in what sense?

Can't argue in the sense that...

• If the tower was established somewhere...it shouldn't be moved. AGREE
• If its placement will affect the campaign in a broader context...it shouldn't be moved. AGREE
• If the characters specifically are trying to avoid it...it shouldn't be moved. AGREE
• If it really doesn't matter one way or the other, and the characters don't even know about it...why not? Agree kinda sorta that the players have zero chance to be able to tell one way or another, so it doesn't matter.
  

Who is going to care that a Tower we hadn't heard about and weren't planning to go anyway, got moved either toward us or away from us?
Like I said, not my thing generally, I play it straight, but I see the argument.

Quote from: Bren;924978[1] “why not?”

Because the GM may be mistaken in his assessment and because there is a better way of running such things if the GM is not mistaken.

My view that circumstance is so rare it can be ignored. It is due to the fact that everything the players knows about the setting comes from what the referee communicates to the players. A dot on a map doesn't count especially if the name is changed.

Now if the locale included NPCs that the player dealt with before or have connections to other NPCs that make sense in the original location but not in the new. Then you have something that may be noticed. But again this is a rare circumstance were things are that dependent.

Quote from: Bren;924978[2] “I can't really argue with it too much.”

Can't argue with it in what sense?

• That they are different?
• That you as a player wouldn't mind the change in tower location?
• That you as a player wouldn’t notice the change in tower location?

They clearly are different. The degree to which people care about the difference varies a lot. The degree to which people notice the difference varies a lot.
.

You are overthinking the issue, actually both sides of the argument other than Kruger's response is overthinking the argument.

Yes there are circumstances where with could be a problem. But those circumstances are not common to most tables because the problem is always that you didn't give enough information. Not that you gave too much and now you have to own up to it or be viewed as inconsistent.