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.