Quote from: Sommerjon;927279Of course...
Just like when Illusionism was mentioned, you had used Illusionism just days previous...:rolleyes:

Years before that, take a black point for not reading:).
And when it was mentioned on this forum and on another, I tried it to see whether I'm going to get caught. Because, you know, that's what we've been discussing. Ever heard the word "experiment"?
Guess you might have, but just had to check.

QuoteJust 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:

Exaggerating Sommerjon is exaggerating. Got it. Knew it already. Didn't expect anything more from you.

I explained again that I pull stuff out of my brain. And I explained how it's done in steps, because no, you* can't pull it out all at once.

*You, as in "you, Sommerjon".

QuoteOf course you do...:rolleyes:

Of course I do. You can only envy me, or learn to do as I do:)!

QuoteWe just have to trust you.....

Why do you think I care whether you, and that's not the "generic you" here, believe me or not:D? Your opinion is, by and large, unimportant. And doubly so since you only got off my IL a couple days ago as a "second chance".

Quote from: Christopher Brady;927187How 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...

Yes, we were told the barricade was unclimbable, the river was unswimmable, but somehow if we went in the direction the G wanted us to go it was smooth traveling. It felt like we were all just along for the ride with no player agency at all. There were even moments when we were simply told "no, you can't/don't do that". Iirc we put up with it for about a session. I don't play RPGs to be an actor in somebody else's movie, following someone else's script. I at least want agency over my character.

It stood out to us as really almost inconcievably bad GMing too.

Quote from: AsenRG;927288Years before that, take a black point for not reading:).
And when it was mentioned on this forum and on another, I tried it to see whether I'm going to get caught. Because, you know, that's what we've been discussing. Ever heard the word "experiment"?
Guess you might have, but just had to check.


Exaggerating Sommerjon is exaggerating. Got it. Knew it already. Didn't expect anything more from you.

I explained again that I pull stuff out of my brain. And I explained how it's done in steps, because no, you* can't pull it out all at once.

*You, as in "you, Sommerjon".

Of course I do. You can only envy me, or learn to do as I do:)!


Why do you think I care whether you, and that's not the "generic you" here, believe me or not:D? Your opinion is, by and large, unimportant. And doubly so since you only got off my IL a couple days ago as a "second chance".

All you've done is shown how much you play like most Storygamers.  You give just enough information to lead them, yet you refuse to acknowledge what you are doing is illusionism.

Quote from: Sommerjon;927307All you've done is shown how much you play like most Storygamers.  You give just enough information to lead them, yet you refuse to acknowledge what you are doing is illusionism.

So, the usual bullshit most people expect from you:).

Quote from: Sommerjon;927254Are you sure?  Really sure?  Maybe you should talk to Krueg here then;

I assume you're blathering about the "much better one" part.  I'm not going to embed IMO at the end of every sentence to prevent out of context mining by a self-admitted professional troll.

You can simply look at the god knows how many times I told rgrove there's nothing wrong with the way he does things, since, obviously, he still has players and they like it...so, he's doing it right...for them.  
The only reason Grove gets The Bucket is his pathological need to defend everything he does by constantly asserting his style was codified in writing as the dominant paradigm since 1974.  

Has his style existed since forever? Of course it has.
Was it the dominant paradigm for GMing as mentioned in countless modules and articles?  Of course it isn't.  But then again, neither is mine, or anyone's.

Quote from: AsenRG;927321So, the usual bullshit most people expect from you:).

And you've done nothing to disprove my point.

Quote from: DavetheLost;927302Yes, we were told the barricade was unclimbable, the river was unswimmable, but somehow if we went in the direction the G wanted us to go it was smooth traveling. It felt like we were all just along for the ride with no player agency at all. There were even moments when we were simply told "no, you can't/don't do that". Iirc we put up with it for about a session. I don't play RPGs to be an actor in somebody else's movie, following someone else's script. I at least want agency over my character.

It stood out to us as really almost inconcievably bad GMing too.

Huhn, you have my sympathies.  I've never done that to my players.  If I give them four directions I put some thing different at each, and if the players decide to keep going that one direction and forget about the rest?  I lost three encounters, but whatever.

Quote from: Sommerjon;927380And you've done nothing to disprove my point.

Because as usual, you don't have a point, except trolling.

Quote from: CRKrueger;927324I assume you're blathering about the "much better one" part.  I'm not going to embed IMO at the end of every sentence to prevent out of context mining by a self-admitted professional troll.

When you say something enough times it stops being IMO and treat it as fact.
You cry troll whenever someone challenges you, what are you a 12yr old girl?

Quote from: AsenRG;927407Because as usual, you don't have a point, except trolling.

You're real good at poking others, but when someone pokes back you deem them a troll.  How convenient for you.  

You know how you say it is so easy to spot Illusionism, same can be said for a Bullshitter.
The bullshit you have been spewing has been way too easy to see, perhaps some day you will get better(I doubt it) at it.

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.

The reason I don't do it is both that and (more-so) because I can't hide it from myself, and because I and most of my players are clearly interested in playing with actual cause & effect in combat results and situations that make sense and are consistent and that don't warp and transform for reasons of drama or whatever.

Quote from: CRKrueger;927115So, 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.

This is how I feel about it too, and largely why it matters as much or more to me as a GM than it does as a player (where it also matters a lot to me). Fudging, faking and altering at whim all undermine my own interest in the game, and from comparing experiences having done those things, to me makes for a much less interesting type of thing to do with my time.

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".

Perhaps for your theoretical GM, the great illusionist concealer GM. For the actual GM's I have played with, while certainly there were many cases where I couldn't be sure of the difference in specific game situations, the style of the GM was quite learnable, because either they were more or less open about it, or they were not great at hiding it. Also, as I've tried to explain in various ways, the types of play I and people I've played to get into, tends to result in clues/signs/tells/physical-evidence etc that make it pretty clear in some situations what's going on. If there is a great illusionist concealer GM, I'd be amazed if I'd ever played in their games - it'd mean some of my friends are amazing actors/poker-players/illusionists for an opposite purpose than what their interests seem and tastes seem to be, for no apparent point.

Quote from: Sommerjon;927254Are you sure?  Really sure?  Maybe you should talk to Krueg here then;

Well not exactly. It's been messy but I don't see it as OTW wars. Yes, there have been various posts where people are expressing their opinions in a OTW sort of way, but to me I get that mostly this is intended as "my strong preference/opinion is", which is painful to always need to preface/disclaim that way, and ya we're not very good at doing that consistently on this site, or we just enjoy the freedom to write that way and not be moderated/censored as happens on other forums, but I think mostly this thread is more people explaining their positions (if sometimes overemphasized or without explaining the degree of OTW they mean or whatever), but I've found this one more interesting and relatively peaceful than not.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;927406Huhn, you have my sympathies.  I've never done that to my players.  If I give them four directions I put some thing different at each, and if the players decide to keep going that one direction and forget about the rest?  I lost three encounters, but whatever.

Thinking to GM's I have played with who were great GM's at their style, but had no map and did have a plan for what we'd do up to a point, I could tell by the way they described things what they thought the reasonable thing to do was. Also, to a greater or lesser degree, you could tell when you were trying something they hadn't thought of, and how sympathetic they were to it, by their ongoing tone and the results you'd get from pursuing such paths. So for example if you tried something that got across their roadblocks and rivers, you'd likely run into something else, and then something else, so it was pretty clear the universe was out to not have you do that.

When the GM is good enough at what they do well, I can be happy enough playing anyway, especially if they are clear enough about it that I can tell what the options are, and what is going to be gamed dynamically and what is more or less determined and not worth struggling against.

I can be plenty interested in a game as long as the areas that aren't under control are clear enough, and the "actual game" dynamic parts are interesting enough and the allowed fair gameplay around them is interesting to me. But if the GM is faking/(not)fooling about where the boundaries between those are, then that annoys me because then I may try to interact/play-with/understand things in ways that end up being wastes of time and energy.

Yes yes because everyone is watching for the evil DMs 24/7 just in case they are an evil DM. Because you NEVER KNOW if the DM is evil so better watch them all carefully to catch them in the act. Because YOU'LL KNOW!

Quote from: Skarg;927466Well not exactly. It's been messy but I don't see it as OTW wars. Yes, there have been various posts where people are expressing their opinions in a OTW sort of way, but to me I get that mostly this is intended as "my strong preference/opinion is", which is painful to always need to preface/disclaim that way, and ya we're not very good at doing that consistently on this site, or we just enjoy the freedom to write that way and not be moderated/censored as happens on other forums, but I think mostly this thread is more people explaining their positions (if sometimes overemphasized or without explaining the degree of OTW they mean or whatever), but I've found this one more interesting and relatively peaceful than not.

When you say something enough times it stops being IMO and you treat it as fact.