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

Sure...... okay bub.

Quote from: CRKrueger;925472People say the same thing about Zero Prep vs. Detailed Prep, they can always tell the difference.  I'm not so sure.  If I'm specifically trying to detect either, I'm sure I could tell, but if I'm just rolling with it, playing, probably not if done well.

Of course people can tell the difference:). I just don't care whether you prepared or improvised. It's not like I don't know, but since it makes no difference to me, why mention it?

Quote from: rgrove0172;925485You create an entire timeline including apprehension, trial and due process for a bunch of no name NPC muggers?

Yes. You mean you don't? People just kill NPCs and that has no repercussions in your setting, because...why? Because you hadn't prepared for it?
If that's the case, I'd posit that your preparation isn't worth much:).

So, yes. Though "due process" in a fantasy setting might not be what people imagine, yes, I do create a separate line for such events. Some PCs can just power through the whole thing, most would have to deal with it.
Of course, that's for settings where the reaction to finding a dead body isn't to expose it and if nobody claims it, throw it in an unnamed grave. But if those muggers weren't just random nobodies, there will be repercussions in any setting.

Now that I think if it, there's a reason I recommend to all my players that they read "the 6 ways to avoid violence", and explain them the workings of the setting's legal system before the game...

QuoteSeriously you want anyone to believe that and then have the nerve to say you want proof of how others play? Please, I gotta call bullshit on that one.

Call BS on whatever you want. That's still how I run.

QuoteAlso BS on players knowing the GM changed his mind midstream at some point. Ive heard several Zero Preppers in here claim their players never know the difference between theirs and a fully pre-planned game. If they can pull that off, no way in hell anyone is going to notice a subtle shift if presented with finesse.

Some of my players don't know the difference...because they either 1) don't care, or 2) don't have experience GMing.
Same thing goes for players. If your players don't care, it doesn't maater. If they have never been GMing themselves, or never used illusionism themselves when GMing? They might not get it for quite a while.
But eventually, they would be able to tell. People who have done the same? They'll pinpoint you rather quickly.

Quote from: Omega;925487How? Unless the GM is telegraphing that its a sham then the players have no way of knowing that the tower was on the east road but is now on the north road. And if the GM is telegraphing then they arent playing well are they?

I assume you don't play just RPGs, here.
What, you've never been able to recognize it when someone pulls a trick you're familiar with? I'd find that hard to believe.

Quote from: CRKrueger;925586Now you know how I feel about OOC mechanics.  There is no acceptable amount of shit in the Rocky Road.

OK, I can now sympathyze;).

Quote from: Spinachcat;925666I can cheat all damn day, but I prefer not to. I will however do WTF it takes to make sure a 4 hour convention game gets its beginning, middle and end before that final hour chimes.

Of course, we can rail on GM styles all night long, but what I care about is this: Are you and your players having a great time? Are you happy to run again next week? Are your players happy to return? If the answer is yes, then you're doing it right EVEN if your style wouldn't work for me.

But if our GM styles are different, remember that you're just a terrible person and your lame players suck ass no matter how much fun you degenerate freaks may be having.

You're totally right. I'm sure a lot of us share the same feeling.
So there's something we agree on, after all;).

Quote from: rgrove0172;925736I still detect an underlying current within many of the posts that seem to indicate some sort of competitive dynamic between players and GM. I know there are some games designed this way. My group enjoys the occasional game of Descent which is absolutely a competition. Most roleplaying games however aren't. The GM is there to facilitate and challenge, provoke and entertain, judge and manage, not to beat anybody. He has absolute power in making the game what it is therefore he can kill at a whim or make the whole party Kings! I cant say in all my days gaming the idea of the GM cheating ever even came to mind. Players cheating? Sure, Ive caught a few trying to hedge rolls, add modifiers that weren't there, conveniently forget hindering conditions etc. They are after all, competing against the system and setting to accomplish something. The GM however? His only goal is to make sure everyone has a good time!

I have always made this clear when starting a new group or campaign. I am there to present the world and manage the action so that everyone has fun. I may deviate from rules on occasion, manipulate the laws of nature and averages, and whatever else I deem appropriate in order to ensure this objective is reached. Nobody has ever accused me of 'cheating', not because it was obvious or not, but because it doesn't freaking matter! I would think its assumed the GM tinkers with the action at times, manipulates the setting, maneuvers situations and dangles NPCs on his strings. So what? Unless something dreadful happens to the characters and it seems as if the GM 'cheated' to cause it, I cant imagine ever even bringing it up as a player.

If 'cheating' means to operate counter to the rules as written. Every GM that has ever breathed is guilty, no arguments please...

If 'cheating' means to take unscrupulous action counter to the rules in order to win a contest, then only a complete dickhead GM would ever do such a thing and Ill go ahead and assume none of us fit that description.

So if we are going to talk railroading, illusionism or whatever, please lets remove the 'cheating' references. They just don't fit and lend a negative aspect to the approach that just doesn't belong there.

Ah yes, this thread goes exactly as expected...based on previous threads.
Illusionist self-justification #2 (usually used right after #1, "you're not going to be able to tell, even if you've been able to tell...repeatedly"): It's not competitive, why does it matter? Check.
Illusionist self-justification #3: It's just breaking the rules and the GM isn't bound by any rules. Check.
Keep it on, you're progressing nicely;).

Quote from: AsenRG;926881Of course people can tell the difference:). I just don't care whether you prepared or improvised. It's not like I don't know, but since it makes no difference to me, why mention it?


Yes. You mean you don't? People just kill NPCs and that has no repercussions in your setting, because...why? Because you hadn't prepared for it?
If that's the case, I'd posit that your preparation isn't worth much:).

So, yes. Though "due process" in a fantasy setting might not be what people imagine, yes, I do create a separate line for such events. Some PCs can just power through the whole thing, most would have to deal with it.
Of course, that's for settings where the reaction to finding a dead body isn't to expose it and if nobody claims it, throw it in an unnamed grave. But if those muggers weren't just random nobodies, there will be repercussions in any setting.

Now that I think if it, there's a reason I recommend to all my players that they read "the 6 ways to avoid violence", and explain them the workings of the setting's legal system before the game...


Call BS on whatever you want. That's still how I run.


Some of my players don't know the difference...because they either 1) don't care, or 2) don't have experience GMing.
Same thing goes for players. If your players don't care, it doesn't maater. If they have never been GMing themselves, or never used illusionism themselves when GMing? They might not get it for quite a while.
But eventually, they would be able to tell. People who have done the same? They'll pinpoint you rather quickly.


I assume you don't play just RPGs, here.
What, you've never been able to recognize it when someone pulls a trick you're familiar with? I'd find that hard to believe.


OK, I can now sympathyze;).


You're totally right. I'm sure a lot of us share the same feeling.
So there's something we agree on, after all;).


Ah yes, this thread goes exactly as expected...based on previous threads.
Illusionist self-justification #2 (usually used right after #1, "you're not going to be able to tell, even if you've been able to tell...repeatedly"): It's not competitive, why does it matter? Check.
Illusionist self-justification #3: It's just breaking the rules and the GM isn't bound by any rules. Check.
Keep it on, you're progressing nicely;).

And despite multiple threads and dozens of posts some of you still don't get it. You still argue where no argument exists!

Hable ingles? maybe?

Sprichst du Deutsch?

Just checking, sometimes it seems like we aren't communicating at all.

Quote from: rgrove0172;926890Just checking, sometimes it seems like we aren't communicating at all.

That's what always happens when distinction deniers enter the fray.
Instead of going to the mattresses over...

• What the exact definition of the distinction should be.
• Whether a game, mechanic, or technique meets the definition of the distinction.
• Whether any facet of the distinction is better objectively or subjectively under certain circumstances.

...they go to the mattresses over whether such a distinction even exists.
IC/OOC, Narrative/Non-Narrative, etc...
When someone simply crosses their arms and denies the entire premise of a conversation, then, obviously, little communication can occur.

Protip: In this thread, you're acting as the distinction denier.

Quote from: rgrove0172;926890And despite multiple threads and dozens of posts some of you still don't get it. You still argue where no argument exists!

Hable ingles? maybe?

Sprichst du Deutsch?

Just checking, sometimes it seems like we aren't communicating at all.

Yeah, of course I'm speaking English, and so are you, despite the logic failure. Or is it entitlement? Do you really expect that anyone who disagrees with you just doesn't understand you:)?

Let me make that clear, your [STRIKE]arguments[/STRIKE] excuses are rather uncomplicated to get:). What you seem unable or unwilling to understand is that I've read them before, and never found them compelling.
BTW, other people actually presented those arguments better than you. If they didn't persuade me, you stand zero chances. It's not the presentation that sucks, it's the arguments themselves;).

T'as compris enfin, espèce d'illusioniste:D?

Quote from: AsenRG;926896T'as compris enfin, espèce d'illusioniste:D?

Do you finally understand the Illusionist species?

I know the base meaning of the words; the syntax, conjugation and grammar are completely unknown.

I have played with a GM who did more-or-less zero-prep for Call of Cthulhu. He was really into the setting though, so you could say he had been prepping by reading background material, but when we showed up he had no setting books, no printouts other than character sheets, and he seemed to make up the start of the story on the fly.

I also ALMOST did this a few times as a GM, but I used a game that is designed for it: Houses of the Blooded. I suppose some people would call it a story game, but it really gets rolling with minimal prep, and the rules are built around this. All I made up beforehand was basically almost cliche-ish "a Baron is inviting lots of aristocrats to a lavish party, and then someone gets murdered". I also decided that one of the guests would be a sexy aristocratic Ven woman who is described in the rules. That was it.

Quote from: CRKrueger;926893That's what always happens when distinction deniers enter the fray.
Instead of going to the mattresses over...

• What the exact definition of the distinction should be.
• Whether a game, mechanic, or technique meets the definition of the distinction.
• Whether any facet of the distinction is better objectively or subjectively under certain circumstances.

...they go to the mattresses over whether such a distinction even exists.
IC/OOC, Narrative/Non-Narrative, etc...
When someone simply crosses their arms and denies the entire premise of a conversation, then, obviously, little communication can occur.

Protip: In this thread, you're acting as the distinction denier.

Not even sort of. Wow just wow.

All I have ever argued is the lack of a good/bad, better/ worse when comparing the two styles. I don't know how else to phrase it. No matter what some of us say some of you insist in attacking the opposing approach and elevating your own. I sure as shit won't start another thread on this pointless debate buts its very hard to ignore the pompous comments posted without opposition.

I haven't denied anything, other than the one sided opinion some have expressed.

Quote from: CRKrueger;926897Do you finally understand the Illusionist species?

I know the base meaning of the words; the syntax, conjugation and grammar are completely unknown.

'Cause it's using a colloquial form, admittedly one that's somewhat hard to translate. "Did you finally get it, you illusionist" is a good enough translation, though depending on translator and context, you could possibly make it "you dirty illusionist" instead;).
Then again, I probably still speak French better than English, despite the lack of use. Alas, the same can't be said for my Spanish, which has also fallen on the wayside lately:).

Of course, given his hint that we don't understand him for language issues, I was tempted to just write my previous post in true AsenSpeak (TM) form. However, since it consists of passing from French to English to Russian to Bulgarian to Mandarin Chinese to Spanish at almost random points within the same sentence, I decided it wouldn't improve the communication:D!

Quote from: AsenRG;926881I assume you don't play just RPGs, here.
What, you've never been able to recognize it when someone pulls a trick you're familiar with? I'd find that hard to believe.

That wasnt the point at all. You failed totally to get it. Try again please.

There is a lot of that going around. All of us trying to communicate some admittedly pretty abstract concepts with the limitations of the medium. I haven't intended to piss anybody off, degrade anybody's choice of gaming approach, insult anyone, berate anybody's post, or sound ignorant or stubborn or anything other than an interested gamer but.... I probably succeeded in all of those anyway. Go figure.

I will stick by my statement however that there are any number of ways to run a game. All are equally acceptable, valuable and respectable. Hell, even open cheating by ignoring a die roll or something is ok under certain circumstances (players don't care for example) so there just are no absolutes here. As long we all remember that we can have a meaningful discussion. When that premise fails, its turns to a bunch of whining and bitching and slamming and is frankly just annoying as hell to read.

Quote from: Omega;926909That wasnt the point at all. You failed totally to get it. Try again please.

What's your point then? Insttuting a No True Scotsman stating that if your GM is spotted doing it, he or she wasn't playing well:)?

I told you exactly why quite a few people find it easy to spot illusionism, no matter how well you play it, so if that's your point, the explanation still applies;).

Quote from: rgrove0172;926914I will stick by my statement however that there are any number of ways to run a game. All are equally acceptable, valuable and respectable. Hell, even open cheating by ignoring a die roll or something is ok under certain circumstances (players don't care for example) so there just are no absolutes here. As long we all remember that we can have a meaningful discussion. When that premise fails, its turns to a bunch of whining and bitching and slamming and is frankly just annoying as hell to read.

The flaw in your premise is that all are not acceptable, valuable, and respectable to all on this site.  Some here absolutely despise some ways to run a game. So much so that they may very well not even accept that such ways of play may be valid for some groups. Not everyone accepts that there are no absolutes.

Quote from: DavetheLost;926922The flaw in your premise is that all are not acceptable, valuable, and respectable to all on this site.  Some here absolutely despise some ways to run a game. So much so that they may very well not even accept that such ways of play may be valid for some groups. Not everyone accepts that there are no absolutes.

Well if standing firm on the notion that nobody else can have an opinion because its in conflict with mine is something some here are guilty of... I just don't have a response honestly. I mean, its so far outside the parameters of not only typical forum protocol and common human dignity that the opinion of anyone guilty of it doesn't really deserve much consideration. You will note I said 'Much', as even a stubborn asshole's opinion has some merit and may well have a great deal. It would just be far more useful in a nicer package.

Absolutely despising something is all well and good and should certainly inspire some heated arguments. Rejecting the opposition's point completely and denying it even exists is just .. well dick.

I don't drink alcohol. Never have, never will. Its not some moral high ground or memories of an abusive alcoholic father either, I just don't see the point. It tastes like shit and makes you act like a fucking jerk, oh an occasionally causes you to hurt people. I can debate against it all day long and as a 20+ year paramedic have some particularly bloody arguments. HOWEVER - I would never claim those who do drink don't have a right to at least argue their point. I wont stand here and scream that drinking is just inherently evil and Im not going to even listen to any no good, sorry assed drunk try to tell me any different. Who the hell would I think I was?

Some here sound like they would, completely negate the opposition's right to argue I mean.

Quote from: rgrove0172;926902Not even sort of. Wow just wow.

All I have ever argued is the lack of a good/bad, better/ worse when comparing the two styles. I don't know how else to phrase it. No matter what some of us say some of you insist in attacking the opposing approach and elevating your own. I sure as shit won't start another thread on this pointless debate buts its very hard to ignore the pompous comments posted without opposition.

I haven't denied anything, other than the one sided opinion some have expressed.

Yeah, no denial that Illusionism is different from Improvising or that an Illusion that removes choice is different than random creation.  Whatever, dude.

You still think completely nullifying an opposed roll to manipulate an event the way you want it to go is not only normal and common, but endorsed through precedent from the roots of the hobby, so...yeah.