Quote from: AsenRG;926920I 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;).

You did?  Maybe reiterate.

I know I listed several examples where pretty much every one of the people who claim they'll always catch their GM said "Oh, not in that case." that you didn't reply to yet.  If you claim you would be able to spot those, then you're just wildly boasting.  You're like the guy in Vegas who claims he knows exactly how Ricky Jay does every one of his tricks.

Yeah, if the GM makes anything a Standard Operating Procedure, with an easily telegraphed agenda, anyone would eventually detect the pattern if that's how he always GMs.

The problem is saying you can "always" do anything.

Quote from: CRKrueger;926930Yeah, 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.

Yep, that's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. Just as you are yours.

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.

I absolutely accept that...

Quote from: rgrove0172;926948Yep, that's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. Just as you are yours.

The problem is your you arent stating an opinion, you are making direct claims and then wonder why people keep calling you out on it as not true. Therein lies the problem and why you keep getting punted around. Its the same as when Chris makes yet another hare-brained claim about D&D or rats on wizards overpower, or when Armchair makes his usual false claim that D&D is all about minis and the books tell you you MUST have them, and so on ad nausium.

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.

I did post that if he's having fun and his group is having fun, he's doing it right for that group...more than once, too, I think, but I'm not in the mood to search my own posts.

It's when I read the "and that's the standard way to do it since the dawn of the hobby" addendum that I reacted with "I call BS to that" (which was, might I add, a greatly censored variant of my initial reaction). I mean, there are people here who have been at the dawn of the hobby - Chirine and Gronan, for example, and probably others with close to the same experience. If they're telling me that this wasn't considered acceptable back then, I'd take their word over that of rgrove.

Quote from: CRKrueger;926931You did?  Maybe reiterate.

I know I listed several examples where pretty much every one of the people who claim they'll always catch their GM said "Oh, not in that case." that you didn't reply to yet.  If you claim you would be able to spot those, then you're just wildly boasting.  You're like the guy in Vegas who claims he knows exactly how Ricky Jay does every one of his tricks.

Yeah, if the GM makes anything a Standard Operating Procedure, with an easily telegraphed agenda, anyone would eventually detect the pattern if that's how he always GMs.

The problem is saying you can "always" do anything.

I've missed that post, obviously. Will check it and get back to you.
Also, 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".
And of course, stage magicians can often notice how their colleagues are doing tricks, according to the stage magicians I've spoken with.

P.S.: You mean this post? I have only one thing to answer.
"You can fool some people all the time, or all people some of the time, but you can't fool everybody all the time".
If you're using illusionism at all,over the course of a longer campaign, you approach "all the time" as a requirement. And if your players discuss it after the session, it won't take long before you stumble in the last sentence of the above.
Or in other words, you will slip, no if and but, the question is only when. And the result...well, it's going to depend on the group. But if the group doesn't care, they wouldn't be looking at all.

And the "protip" part?

QuoteProtip: If the GM's style, delivery, timing, etc. changes when he's fudging - he sucks at it.

Your protip is complete and utter horseshit.
The 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.
It 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.
Then again, the longer it takes, the harder the revelation would be if anyone would have had objections to begin with. See: Rgrove's Star Wars player.

Quote from: Omega;927005The problem is your you arent stating an opinion, you are making direct claims and then wonder why people keep calling you out on it as not true. Therein lies the problem and why you keep getting punted around. Its the same as when Chris makes yet another hare-brained claim about D&D or rats on wizards overpower, or when Armchair makes his usual false claim that D&D is all about minis and the books tell you you MUST have them, and so on ad nausium.

Those are all obviously opinions. Any statement made is frankly. I've never claimed otherwise although others have.

Just think about it a moment. I claim that railroading or whatever is a fundamental element of roleplaying, always has been. That's obviously an opinion. Someone disagrees with me here and says Im full of shit. How is that any different? If what Im saying is a direct claim then they are guilty of the same, and some have worded their rebuttals just that way - DECLARING rather than politely disagreeing.

Where are the furious posts berating them for their stubbornness and refusal to open their minds to other approaches?

Quote from: AsenRG;927024I did post that if he's having fun and his group is having fun, he's doing it right for that group...more than once, too, I think, but I'm not in the mood to search my own posts.

It's when I read the "and that's the standard way to do it since the dawn of the hobby" addendum that I reacted with "I call BS to that" (which was, might I add, a greatly censored variant of my initial reaction). I mean, there are people here who have been at the dawn of the hobby - Chirine and Gronan, for example, and probably others with close to the same experience. If they're telling me that this wasn't considered acceptable back then, I'd take their word over that of rgrove.

I've been in the hobby since '77 or there about, have played a wide variety of games with a wide variety of GMs. To say that anything is the standard way to do it and has been since the dawn of the hobby is not my experience. Considering that Gronan and Chirine were pretty much present at the birth, and I am in regular communication with others from the very earliest days, yeah, I'll take there word for how things were. Not saying that everyone plays he way they do, or did, that is certainly not the case, but I'll trust them to bear witness to what it was like in the earliest days.

I 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.

I 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.

I'm willing to give him a bit of a pass on style. Mine is radically different to what was practiced in the early days too. I remember the days of elaborate maps and detailed keys, and nothing was ever moved to make things more "interesting" for the players. I also have a number of rulebooks that preach the opposite, advising GMs to use illusionism, move things around the map, change encounters at will, fudge dice to keep characters alive, etc. There are even mechanics like Fate Points, Take 10 and Take 20 that are free passes to step outside the rules.

Quote from: DavetheLost;927031I've been in the hobby since '77 or there about, have played a wide variety of games with a wide variety of GMs. To say that anything is the standard way to do it and has been since the dawn of the hobby is not my experience. Considering that Gronan and Chirine were pretty much present at the birth, and I am in regular communication with others from the very earliest days, yeah, I'll take there word for how things were. Not saying that everyone plays he way they do, or did, that is certainly not the case, but I'll trust them to bear witness to what it was like in the earliest days.

Well, then you're one of those guys with "close to the same experience" that I referred to:). And no, I can also point out that it was far from uniform even back then - it's just that chea...ahem, illusionism, wouldn't be seen as an worthy example.
Me? I wasn't even born at the time, so I only care how they did things back then because I think it would improve my own gaming. Experience confirms it.

QuoteI 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.

Despite shorter expeirience, I can sign under every word of this.

QuoteI don't think RGrove is doing anything close to that.

Neither do I. But try suggesting to Krueger that some amount of out-of-character mechanics is fine and is the standard...see what happens.
I react to illusionism pretty much the same way, and for quite the similar reasons.
Now, if it's about "having a great story", fine! I like writing...so let's play a narrative game, and you'll have me collaborating in getting the story better, whether by illusionism, or by any other method. In fact, I might initiate it - if you warn me before the game. (If I come expecting to play more immersively, I will achieve that. It just might screw your story, and some of the mechanics might remain unused. There's a reason why they say that communiction is key!)

QuoteIt 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.

True. And more power to him and his group - I just advise him to disclose it to avoid such events. After all, I disclose my style, and it's not like it's exactly uncommon;).

QuoteI'm willing to give him a bit of a pass on style. Mine is radically different to what was practiced in the early days too. I remember the days of elaborate maps and detailed keys, and nothing was ever moved to make things more "interesting" for the players.

It still isn't:D.

QuoteI also have a number of rulebooks that preach the opposite, advising GMs to use illusionism, move things around the map, change encounters at will, fudge dice to keep characters alive, etc.

I have those, too. And I find following this part of them fucks up the game beyond any salvaging;).
I also have Scion 1e, which advises you to use mechanics that fuck up the game beyond salvaging if you follow them. Clearly, bad advice is possible not just in the GMing section:D!

QuoteThere are even mechanics like Fate Points, Take 10 and Take 20 that are free passes to step outside the rules.

Ahem, all of these are part of the rules, not "outside the rules". And I'd say that at least Take 10 isn't actually "outside the simulation", either (and the point might be made for the other two, but it would be more contentious).

Quote from: DavetheLost;927031I've been in the hobby since '77 or there about, have played a wide variety of games with a wide variety of GMs. To say that anything is the standard way to do it and has been since the dawn of the hobby is not my experience. Considering that Gronan and Chirine were pretty much present at the birth, and I am in regular communication with others from the very earliest days, yeah, I'll take there word for how things were. Not saying that everyone plays he way they do, or did, that is certainly not the case, but I'll trust them to bear witness to what it was like in the earliest days.

I 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.

I 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.

I'm willing to give him a bit of a pass on style. Mine is radically different to what was practiced in the early days too. I remember the days of elaborate maps and detailed keys, and nothing was ever moved to make things more "interesting" for the players. I also have a number of rulebooks that preach the opposite, advising GMs to use illusionism, move things around the map, change encounters at will, fudge dice to keep characters alive, etc. There are even mechanics like Fate Points, Take 10 and Take 20 that are free passes to step outside the rules.

Exactly, its those rulebooks and the GM suggestions in them that led me to make state the opinion that illusionism was alive and well and considered in the very least a viable alternative in the early days. I was there too, picked up chainmail and the little white box and was one of the first in the area to have even heard of such a thing. Now I haven't been deeply involved in the industry as some, but I have game extensively and dabbled in countless products through the years and consider myself to be well informed if nothing else.

I wont shove my approach as GM down anyone's throat, I completely get that some people hate it. Ive had similar reactions to other GMs and their preferred way of gaming. Ive also been pleasantly surprised and tried other approaches (zero prep for example) and love them. I have gone back and read through a great many of the posts and the only time Ive reacted strongly is when someone claims outright that my approach is criminal in some way, a blasphemy against the very nature of roleplaying. I find that to be a ridiculous claim when so many texts on the hobby actually go so far as to recommend it.

I just see the whole matter as similar to that of encounter balancing. Most systems recommend the GM level their encounters to provide a good challenge but not to tough a fight for the player group that they have little chance of winning. Most even include some sort of system to manage this. Its a standard across many, many games. I however, hate it. I have never balanced anything in favor of or against the players. I may swoop in with a bit of GM meddling to help them out etc. but the world is, what it is. My bad guys don't pick and choose their rivals by how good they are, they try to dominate like everyone else if given the opportunity. The hill giant guarding the pass is level 11... period. Doesn't matter if the group of adventurers are level 3, level 9 or level 38. He is what he is. Sometimes players need to know when to run.

This approach is another one of those controversial topics and can generate all kinds of hate and finger pointing but oh well, that's how I like to play. I would never think of claiming leveling encounters wasn't a time honored practice however, or that it should never be utilized. There is just too much evidence to the contrary. Instead Ill discuss it for a while if someone brings it up then say I don't like it an move on. Its really not that hard you know?

Quote from: AsenRG;927024I've missed that post, obviously. Will check it and get back to you.
Also, 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".
And of course, stage magicians can often notice how their colleagues are doing tricks, according to the stage magicians I've spoken with.

P.S.: You mean this post? I have only one thing to answer.
"You can fool some people all the time, or all people some of the time, but you can't fool everybody all the time".
If you're using illusionism at all,over the course of a longer campaign, you approach "all the time" as a requirement. And if your players discuss it after the session, it won't take long before you stumble in the last sentence of the above.
Or in other words, you will slip, no if and but, the question is only when. And the result...well, it's going to depend on the group. But if the group doesn't care, they wouldn't be looking at all.

Which is why it is amusing to watch you think your zero prepping is anywhere close to the awesomeness you think it is.

Quote from: rgrove0172;927034Exactly, its those rulebooks and the GM suggestions in them that led me to make state the opinion that illusionism was alive and well and considered in the very least a viable alternative in the early days. I was there too, picked up chainmail and the little white box and was one of the first in the area to have even heard of such a thing. Now I haven't been deeply involved in the industry as some, but I have game extensively and dabbled in countless products through the years and consider myself to be well informed if nothing else.

Well, now you're being reasonable, for a welcome change.
Which is the earlieast product you have available that advises for using illusionism? Because I have a suspicion it didn't happen before the 80ies...

QuoteI wont shove my approach as GM down anyone's throat, I completely get that some people hate it. Ive had similar reactions to other GMs and their preferred way of gaming. Ive also been pleasantly surprised and tried other approaches (zero prep for example) and love them.

Yeah, same here. Except when you start "my approach was the standard approach"...it amounts to shoving your approach down other people's throats. It actually implies that people that avoid this approach are outliers and everybody should expect your approach. It's their fault if they expected anything else!
In short, that's attempting to "raise your status" at the expense of others. I don't condone this, so you got what you got.

Had you started by "there's no one approach that everybody shares, and there's no approach that should be expected - just talk before the game"...well, I can't speak about others, but I probably wouldn't have posted at all (except to support you).

QuoteI have gone back and read through a great many of the posts and the only time Ive reacted strongly is when someone claims outright that my approach is criminal in some way, a blasphemy against the very nature of roleplaying. I find that to be a ridiculous claim when so many texts on the hobby actually go so far as to recommend it.

I've read those.
There are lots of poor games. There are games you can argue are so bad that they have done only a disservice to the hobby by existing.
Written in a rulebook=/=worthy of emulating.
I just mentioned Scion, it's an example there, too. Coincidentally, it also recommended illusionism.

QuoteI just see the whole matter as similar to that of encounter balancing. Most systems recommend the GM level their encounters to provide a good challenge but not to tough a fight for the player group that they have little chance of winning. Most even include some sort of system to manage this. Its a standard across many, many games. I however, hate it. I have never balanced anything in favor of or against the players. I may swoop in with a bit of GM meddling to help them out etc. but the world is, what it is. My bad guys don't pick and choose their rivals by how good they are, they try to dominate like everyone else if given the opportunity. The hill giant guarding the pass is level 11... period. Doesn't matter if the group of adventurers are level 3, level 9 or level 38. He is what he is. Sometimes players need to know when to run.

Fun fact: I also find encounter balancing to be an abomination against nature.
And you can bet that a lot of the older games didn't have such a practice - just look at their random encounter tables. Walking around in Jakalla, you might well meet an enemy you'd be unable to defeat for a few levels. The lesson, to me, is clear: learn to survive!

QuoteThis approach is another one of those controversial topics and can generate all kinds of hate and finger pointing but oh well, that's how I like to play. I would never think of claiming leveling encounters wasn't a time honored practice however, or that it should never be utilized. There is just too much evidence to the contrary. Instead Ill discuss it for a while if someone brings it up then say I don't like it an move on. Its really not that hard you know?

It should be utilised, if that's the kind of game the group is looking for, and if the GM doesn't mind providing it, but only in this case (which is a surprisingly popular one, though). I've had groups that expected and would have liked balanced encounters. I don't, so they never got them. They knew it would be wrong to expect it from me.
And if they didn't want them, it would be equally wrong for me to make all the encounters level appropriate.
But again, it's not like groups and GMs that are used to balanced encounters are exactly hard to come by:D!
As long as everybody knows what to expect, I don't object to balanced encounters. Of course, if we know what to expect, I'd also know to skip games I don't like;).

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.

I never ever pretend I've prepared extensively when I haven't, so WTF is your point?

Quote from: AsenRG;927043I never ever pretend I've prepared extensively when I haven't, so WTF is your point?

Here let me use your words.

Quote from: AsenRG;927024I have only one thing to answer.
"You can fool some people all the time, or all people some of the time, but you can't fool everybody all the time".
If you're using zero prep...er illusionism at all,over the course of a longer campaign, you approach "all the time" as a requirement. And if your players discuss it after the session, it won't take long before you stumble in the last sentence of the above.
Or in other words, you will slip, no if and but, the question is only when. And the result...well, it's going to depend on the group. But if the group doesn't care, they wouldn't be looking at all.

Quote from: Sommerjon;927051Here let me use your words.

So? Can you point to me where it says I'm fooling anyone into believing I have prepared it in advance?

Protip: improvisation isn't fooling, especially not when my pre-campaign speech makes it clear what exactly I'm doing and how.

Quote from: AsenRG;927042...
As long as everybody knows what to expect, I don't object to balanced encounters. Of course, if we know what to expect, I'd also know to skip games I don't like;).

Yep. That though is the type of thinking that leads me to write things that some may think is me being one-true-way-ist.

That is, when applied to the part about using the rules and rolls or bending and fudging them at will, if the player expects the rules to be used, but the GM is fudging, then that seems like a mistake and dishonest. I feel the same way about pretending there is a map that determines what lies in what direction and what NPCs are where, when actually the GM is going to make it up or just has a list of encounters that will happen in order - I want it to be up-front, so I don't play as if there is a mapped world to work with, and not being honest about it would tend to be frustrating and annoying because it would lead to me thinking/playing in ways that are irrelevant. Same with plot railroads and being saved by cavalry always when we are about to be defeated - I want to know before I agree to invest hours thinking I'm playing a different type of game, and even if I may fail to always detect it, it's still a deception and a violation of an agreement unless I fail to ask before playing.

Also, I feel like there's a bit of a language gap as well as an expectation gulf around these things, because of how common the different modes are, and the lack of distinct language for them. Gaming with a GM that is fudging, even when there's explicit pre-agreement it will happen, seems to me like it is a different type of activity from following the rules. The available words I know for that are mostly negative - fudging is one of the weakest.