I will level balance encounters to a certain extent. It is in my experience more fun to play a game where the majority of encounters are challenging, but neither a walk over nor an instant TPK. That said, succesful encounter resolution does not always mean combat. It could mean sneaking around, negotiating, or running away very fast. Things in my campaigns are the "levels" it makes organic sense for them to be. Low level characters take on goblins and run away from dragons, high level characters skip the goblins and go after the dragons. So the challenges scale with teh characters, but not because the goblins suddenly vanish or morph into ogres. If a high level group wants to go beat up a little band of gblins they are more than welcome to, I just don't expect it to be very exciting.

One of the more unpleasant failures of a game to live up to expectations was a Cthulhu Invictus scenario I played at a con. We discovered an evil cult creating some sort of twisted mutants beneeth the villa. After investigation we made contact with a group of Mi-Go. The let down came at the end of the scenario when the cult summoned some sort of maybe they were Byakhee, and we summoned the Mi-Go to fight them. Cue big set piece batte between two groups of NPCs with little player effect on the outcome. It made the game feel very railroaded.

In the hands of a more skilled GM it might have been more enjoyable. But the GM's delivery had been somewhat flat through the whole game, and the ending just felt contrived.  It was a published adventure, so I cut him some slack for the adventure design part.

Quote from: DavetheLost;927068... the cult summoned some sort of maybe they were Byakhee, and we summoned the Mi-Go to fight them. Cue big set piece batte between two groups of NPCs with little player effect on the outcome. It made the game feel very railroaded....

Did the GM play out the battle using rules and rolls with the PCs present and able to do things and at risk, or did he just dictate/narrate how the fight went? I think that would make a huge difference to me.

Depending on the mode of play, I tend to be very against encounter balance tuning to match the PCs... I think for me it depends on how artificial it is, as opposed to flowing from natural cause & effect, and how much the players can do anything about it or not.

That is, if the GM is smoking something like the D&D 5E rulebook where there are guidelines telling the GM to calculate the party strength and plan battles and loot based on a numeric calculation, then I hate that. Almost as much as I hate it when the GM just generates stuff in the world to match the PCs and have them attack the PCs based on his knowledge of their power levels. I want the world to be the world and the challenge level to come from cause & effect that makes sense. That is, the PCs should be able to size up threats and choose how to, or whether to, approach or avoid, fight or flee, and also to behave in ways that lead to more/stronger or fewer/weaker enemies and so on, based on in-world actions and deeds rather than the universe morphing to meta-magically provide some inevitable/unavoidable challenge sweet spot.

Quote from: Omega;927005when Armchair makes his usual false claim that D&D is all about minis and the books tell you you MUST have them.

From what I can tell, the only claims I've made about miniatures here are
1. One post two years ago expressing doubt that getting rid of miniatures was the key reason for D&D's explosion in the 80s--it helped, but I think the media attention had much more to do with it.

2. My contention that 4E gave the impression of needing expensive minis at launch, which hurt its reception.

I'll admit to having made numerous snarky, overly broad and probably unfair comments about old school gaming, but I don't think they involved miniatures.

Quote from: Skarg;927078Did the GM play out the battle using rules and rolls with the PCs present and able to do things and at risk, or did he just dictate/narrate how the fight went? I think that would make a huge difference to me.

A bit of both I think, but we were really spectators. By that point I was no longer paying close attention.

QuoteDepending on the mode of play, I tend to be very against encounter balance tuning to match the PCs... I think for me it depends on how artificial it is, as opposed to flowing from natural cause & effect, and how much the players can do anything about it or not.

That is, if the GM is smoking something like the D&D 5E rulebook where there are guidelines telling the GM to calculate the party strength and plan battles and loot based on a numeric calculation, then I hate that. Almost as much as I hate it when the GM just generates stuff in the world to match the PCs and have them attack the PCs based on his knowledge of their power levels. I want the world to be the world and the challenge level to come from cause & effect that makes sense. That is, the PCs should be able to size up threats and choose how to, or whether to, approach or avoid, fight or flee, and also to behave in ways that lead to more/stronger or fewer/weaker enemies and so on, based on in-world actions and deeds rather than the universe morphing to meta-magically provide some inevitable/unavoidable challenge sweet spot.

Yes. 5e, from what I have read, has gone way too far down the rabbit hole of making everything safe but still having the appearance of danger.  In my games if you want to fight goblins you have to go looking for goblins, otherwise who knows what you might bump into if you just wander around looking for random things to kill...the owlbears in the forest don't care what level you are, they just want to eat you.

I have had players attack and kill NPCs who were intended as potential allies. They don't wear t-shirts saying "helpful NPC". I have had players ignore warning signs like very well equipped corpses with terrible wounds. The world is the world. Be careful what you poke with your stick, it might just poke back.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;927079From what I can tell, the only claims I've made about miniatures here are
1. One post two years ago expressing doubt that getting rid of miniatures was the key reason for D&D's explosion in the 80s--it helped, but I think the media attention had much more to do with it.

Funny this. in the '80s we went for miniatures whenever we could get them. None of us had a background in miniatures wargaming, but minis are cool.  I agree that D&D exploded because of the media attention. The fact that D&D rulebooks were available in just about every bookstore and many toy stores, hobby shopes, etc didn't hurt either. I think it is harder to find D&D books at brick & mortar retail now than it was then.

Quote from: AsenRG;927024Also, I didn't mean I'd get all instances of using illusionism. "Always" was probably not the right word. What I should have said is "inevitably".

Right, and that's pretty much what everyone said as well when pushed on it.  You admit you may not be able to detect the fudge itself, but the pattern that continual fudging will create.

Quote from: AsenRG;927024The whole point of fudging and/or using illusionism is to be able to change what you're delivering, to "correct" the timing, and usually, to do so with style.

That's because you're confusing "Illusionism" as "Illusionism used as the basis of a GMing style".  If you go into Basilisk Forest, and the GM lets you roll the encounters, but he controls the encounter table, he could easily have you encounter the Basilisk only when he wanted you to, and you would never know.

Quote from: AsenRG;927024It will change. Even if your presentation doesn't change, the IC patterns that result will be different from a normal session. This will be detected, too, it's just going to take longer.

I highly doubt it.  When I say the GM doesn't suck at it, that's exactly what I mean.  A cheat doesn't win every hand, or he gets buried in the desert. Yeah you rolled Goblins...but how many?  Yeah, you rolled 8 goblins, but are they alone, do they have a Hobgoblin leader or a Shaman?  You guys were playing smart and well, so the GM puts his thumb on the scale as a reward, you guys get sloppy, Goblin#72 takes out your leader with a crit, oh well.  You were playing really smart and well, but you still got brained by Goblin#72, and the GM didn't somehow intervene, why?  Was he playing straight, well not really, it turns out that a couple of the PCs you have, he determined he didn't want in the campaign, so he's making the encounters a hair tougher and letting the dice fall where they may, since that gets him both an increased chance of killing off the PCs he doesn't want, and gets him credibility and trust.

Of course if the GM always saves the player's bacon whenever they risk random death, or always cockblocks their attempt to jump off the railroad - that will be detected, and yeah, that's the definition of doing it wrong.

Rgrove's player is a good example - He didn't detect at all what was happening, it had to be revealed to him.  Grove found out, once you get that trust broken, you never get it back.  

That's why you don't do it.  You don't do it because you can't hide it, hiding it is easy if you are subtle, the reason you don't do it is that if detected, it's over.  

So, you decide the short term gain isn't worth it to long-term campaigning.  You decide the integrity of the world is more important than the integrity of a plot.  You decide that the satisfaction of succeeding in a game played straight for every PC is worth the life of any one PC or any PC party.  Then you take your thumb off the scale and let the players choose their actions in a World in Motion, and the world responds appropriately.

You run a roleplaying game, a much better one.

Quote from: CRKrueger;927115Right, and that's pretty much what everyone said as well when pushed on it.  You admit you may not be able to detect the fudge itself, but the pattern that continual fudging will create.

Yeah - I already apologized for using the wrong word, didn't I? I meant "always" as in "in every campaign".

QuoteThat's because you're confusing "Illusionism" as "Illusionism used as the basis of a GMing style".  If you go into Basilisk Forest, and the GM lets you roll the encounters, but he controls the encounter table, he could easily have you encounter the Basilisk only when he wanted you to, and you would never know.

I highly doubt it.  When I say the GM doesn't suck at it, that's exactly what I mean.  A cheat doesn't win every hand, or he gets buried in the desert. Yeah you rolled Goblins...but how many?  Yeah, you rolled 8 goblins, but are they alone, do they have a Hobgoblin leader or a Shaman?  You guys were playing smart and well, so the GM puts his thumb on the scale as a reward, you guys get sloppy, Goblin#72 takes out your leader with a crit, oh well.  You were playing really smart and well, but you still got brained by Goblin#72, and the GM didn't somehow intervene, why?  Was he playing straight, well not really, it turns out that a couple of the PCs you have, he determined he didn't want in the campaign, so he's making the encounters a hair tougher and letting the dice fall where they may, since that gets him both an increased chance of killing off the PCs he doesn't want, and gets him credibility and trust.

I'm sorry, it seems you mean something here, but I can't make head nor tails of your example.
Let's just say that no, it wouldn't matter if we know the random table he's using.

QuoteOf course if the GM always saves the player's bacon whenever they risk random death, or always cockblocks their attempt to jump off the railroad - that will be detected, and yeah, that's the definition of doing it wrong.

That's just a very obvious pattern. I've detected much less obvious ones.

QuoteRgrove's player is a good example - He didn't detect at all what was happening, it had to be revealed to him.  Grove found out, once you get that trust broken, you never get it back.

You're talking about something that happened in one session, man. Yes, I fully believe that Rgrove is good enough to fool a single player for a single session (everybody else knew and was on board). Over the course of a campaign? With a player who knows what illusionism is well enough to define it? Highly doubtful, even had he decided to try and hide it - which, to his credit, he didn't attempt.
And yes, Rgrove did the right thing by revealing it. (For that matter, his player's reaction was discourteous and inappropriate, though I understand the disappointment. You can vote with your feet without ranting, and he should have done that). Kudos on him for that...

Now if he had revealed it before the session, it would be better - that's my point. And if there was still a rant? I'd have fully supported him and not the player. It's his style. You can go to a GM and ask whether he'd mind to please not do X, Y and Z when it pertains to your character (I've done it myself). It's called asking a question about compatibility.
But if the GM says no, that's his style...well, that's what you get - or nothing. Up to you to decide whether X, Y and Z really are deal-breakers (to me, that was the case, so I didn't join - but the GM in question still got my respect).

QuoteThat's why you don't do it.  You don't do it because you can't hide it, hiding it is easy if you are subtle, the reason you don't do it is that if detected, it's over.

Yes, and that's most of my point. I just add "and it will be detected". I've been able to hide it over months...but nobody could hide it over a year. And, as you said, once it's detected - which always/inevitably happens - it is over.

QuoteSo, you decide the short term gain isn't worth it to long-term campaigning.  You decide the integrity of the world is more important than the integrity of a plot.  You decide that the satisfaction of succeeding in a game played straight for every PC is worth the life of any one PC or any PC party.  Then you take your thumb off the scale and let the players choose their actions in a World in Motion, and the world responds appropriately.

You run a roleplaying game, a much better one.

Yeah, that's what I'm doing. Also, it's what you are doing, AFAICT.

Quote from: AsenRG;927139Yeah, that's what I'm doing. Also, it's what you are doing, AFAICT.

It is.  I never claimed Illusionism was the way to GM, just that I believe most people who don't like Illusionism vastly overestimate their ability to detect it, and the "Silk Handkerchief" type of encounter isn't the same as "the NPC gets away anyway".

Quote from: DavetheLost;927031I have seen illusionism, railroading, deus ex machina endings, acting out the DM's scripted story and more. Most of it made for pretty bad gaming. I have been in games that went beyond illusionism to the degree of "The road east is blocked, the bridge to the south is washed out, there is a pack of mutant bears in the forest to the north..." literally something blocking us from doing anything but what the GM had scripted for us. That was a very frustrating campaign. As was the convention game where ultimately it didn't matter what we had spent four hours investigating because the supernatural cavalry came over the hill at the end for a big set piece battle with the bad guys to provide a happy ending that negated all player agency as we just stood and watched.

How did that stop anyone? Seriously, how?  No one could climb the barricade?  Swim the River?  TPK on the Mutant Bears because the players did want to go west?

I guess because I never restricted my players in that way, I just can't understand why players might feel restrained in any way...

Quote from: DavetheLost;927031I don't think RGrove is doing anything close to that. It sounds like all but one of his Star Wars players is fine with the way he GMs, and that one was only upset when given a look behind the curtain. Some here have the same reaction to his style as that player did. I can see that Grove seems a bit baffled by the response to this style. Not really a surprise if it works for him and his group.

And if it works for his people, shouldn't that just be enough?

Quote from: Sommerjon;927039Which is why it is amusing to watch you think your zero prepping is anywhere close to the awesomeness you think it is.

Try reading. It helps in all these threads you know. rgrove doesnt believe zero prep games are viable.

From rgrove's accounts of some of his sessions and the simple fact that he has players coming back AND very happy with his sessions for years says that his style IS awesome. From his own descriptions he does alot of very intense prep such as researching the era and locale.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;927079

From what I can tell, the only claims I've made about miniatures here are
1. One post two years ago expressing doubt that getting rid of miniatures was the key reason for D&D's explosion in the 80s--it helped, but I think the media attention had much more to do with it.

2. My contention that 4E gave the impression of needing expensive minis at launch, which hurt its reception.

I'll admit to having made numerous snarky, overly broad and probably unfair comments about old school gaming, but I don't think they involved miniatures.

ook, sorry, got your name mixed up with someone else.

Quote from: CRKrueger;927142It is.  I never claimed Illusionism was the way to GM, just that I believe most people who don't like Illusionism vastly overestimate their ability to detect it, and the "Silk Handkerchief" type of encounter isn't the same as "the NPC gets away anyway".

My assessment of my ability to detect it is based on actually having detected it, and having done it myself. I was taught it's the way to GM, what can I say:)?

Either way, I think we've answered how much time goes into zero-prep games, or at least nobody's questioning that, anymore;).

Quote from: Skarg;926467But it's not hyperbolic OTW wars.

Are you sure?  Really sure?  Maybe you should talk to Krueg here then;

Quote from: CRKrueger;927115Of course if the GM always saves the player's bacon whenever they risk random death, or always cockblocks their attempt to jump off the railroad - that will be detected, and yeah, that's the definition of doing it wrong.

Rgrove's player is a good example - He didn't detect at all what was happening, it had to be revealed to him.  Grove found out, once you get that trust broken, you never get it back.  

That's why you don't do it.  You don't do it because you can't hide it, hiding it is easy if you are subtle, the reason you don't do it is that if detected, it's over.  

So, you decide the short term gain isn't worth it to long-term campaigning.  You decide the integrity of the world is more important than the integrity of a plot.  You decide that the satisfaction of succeeding in a game played straight for every PC is worth the life of any one PC or any PC party.  Then you take your thumb off the scale and let the players choose their actions in a World in Motion, and the world responds appropriately.

You run a roleplaying game, a much better one.

Quote from: AsenRG;927139That's just a very obvious pattern. I've detected much less obvious ones.

Of course...:rolleyes:
Just like when Illusionism was mentioned, you had used Illusionism just days previous...:rolleyes:

Just like when you pull fully realized worlds out your ass in milliseconds all the way down to the types of grass and weeds in BFE...:rolleyes:


Of course you do...:rolleyes:

We just have to trust you.....