Quote from: StuartYou would have been better to just say what you wanted to say as clearly as possible.  Misusing terms, trying to redefine them, and inventing new terms really didn't have anything to do with the point you were trying to make.

:shrug:

Honestly I didn't realize I'd been "misusing" it until someone pointed out a definition somewhere. Up until a couple years ago I didn't discuss RPGs on the internet. Before that my discussions were with my group, and my access to external peoples' opinions came through many years of editorials and letters in Dragon Magazine. So for about 22 years now I've been using railroad as a scalar, not a binary.

Once I realized we were talking different terms I tried to explain my position. When that failed I tried to find a different term. Airplane seemed a good one to me because of it's similarities to railroad, and I (wrongly it seems) assumed that if I explained how I was using a word it would make sense to people. I thought those explanations were "saying what I wanted to say as clearly as possible." It seems I was wrong.

Apology accepted... Captain McMurray.

Quote from: James McMurrayAgreed completely. Either give me choices or give me no choices, but be honest about it.

I disagree.  If you present options A through D and whichever one they pick leads to X, they have no way to tell barring psychic ability.

Anyone who's ever, for example, changed the location of a critical clue in a mystery game because the PCs came up with a good place to search has dipped into illusionism.

They will only notice if you are clumsy and stupid about it, as with the example of having an NPC pull the lever, or having "nothing" be behind the doors if they try more than one.

But that's just poor skill, which will wreck any method of GMing.

I'll say it again:  Ain't nothing wrong with illusionism.

In fact it teaches you to be flexible under pressure from players.  You might even think of it as a halfway point between pure scripted railroad nonsense and total off-the-cuff improvising.

Quote from: StuartApology accepted... Captain McMurray.

I got a promotion?!?!? Sweet! ... erk! What's ch-- uuuuurk...

RedFox, in my experience with illusionist GMs (which obvisouly differs from yours, but it's all I've got to go on) nothing is perfect. Eventually a player is going to realize that something is up, usually when the party has just split into three pieces, done completely different things, and arrived at the exact same spot. It doesn't always take something that obvious though.

So for my money, Just Say No To Illusionism. YMMV, and if you show up at a session and run us on an excellent illusionary campaign where we never notice I'll change my mind on it.

QuoteAin't nothing wrong with illusionism.

If the players think they made the "right choice" when in fact it didn't make any difference, you're just screwing them around.

Although I think that something like:

GM: "The passage comes to an intersection.  You can go West or East.  Which way do you go?"

Is almost as bad as not having a decision at all.  There's nothing to base the decision on, so you might as well make it for them and advance the game/story to a point when they can make a real decision.

I've been thinking about the choices from Warlock of Firetop Mountain:

* The Rickety Bridge
* Pull the Bell for the Ferryman
* Swim across the River
* Walk down the shoreline
* Go Back

That's a GREAT set of choices for the players!

On a related note. I never script anything... even on the rare occasions where I grab an adventure off the shelves, I still don't script anything. Essentially the entire game is up to the players to pick an 'east or west' corridor and see where things go from there.  Of course, I also tend to allow, possibly even encourage, parties splitting up 'organically' to cover more ground... so what do I know.

What I've learned from doing this is this: never take a break from the game after the action resolves.  Make sure every game starts with the Characters somewhere they don't really want to be for long.  Why? Because if you have them staring stupidly at that intersection, or loitering in a bar at the start of the game, inevitably they wait for the GM to send them the train to hop on...

Whereas if you get them rolling on their own inititative from the start they don't STOP trying to do stuff, even if it's completely without hook.  The single hardest part of an improv game is the start.

And just so I'm at least vaguely 'in thread'... I include dungeons and all sorts of stuff in my 'enviroments'...

Spike: nice.

James, even though we're somewhere close to sanity again in this thread, I still want to take a last swipe at the bee's nest.

I say there's a difference between limited choices and meaningless choices. They can overlap, e.g. when there's only one "choice", but they're not the same.

You're in a maze of twisty passages. At each intersection you have the option of moving in two to four directions. Sometimes you have some idea what lies in a given direction. (Maybe the monster you ran away from back there.) You can't burrow through the walls...just because. The path you take through the passages will affect a number of things...things you'd expect it to affect in real life. Like, "Do I live or die? Which parts of the maze do I map? Do I pick up anything on my way through?" More information , such as looking at the GM's notes---the ultimate information trove--will help you pick a path to get the outcome you want, but it won't dictate the path.

This is constraint, but there are still meaningful decisions.

Now you're in the midst of a "storyteller-GM's plot". At any given moment you can "do anything". But no matter what you do, the GM already knows what will happen next. The stuff you do affects...nothing. More information won't do you any good, because whether or not you want the preplanned outcome, you're going to get it anyway. Looking at the GM's notes will not help you pick a path through the scenario...all they'll give you is a preview of the path that's already been chosen.

This is "meaningless decisions", or "false choices".

Please don't conflate limited choices with meaningless choices. When I see someone doing this, I think it's for one of two reasons:

1. To defend illusionistic GMing by claiming that GMing is impossible otherwise, and people who think the players are making real choices are just deluding themselves. (This is how I read a great deal of David Berkman's writing on rec.games.frp.advocacy, back in the day.)

2. To attack any kind of constraint at all as if were railroading or "killer GM syndrome". This is how I read some of the "Forge" arguments these days.

Quote from: StuartIf the players think they made the "right choice" when in fact it didn't make any difference, you're just screwing them around.

What do you mean by "right choice"?

Quote from: StuartAlthough I think that something like:

GM: "The passage comes to an intersection.  You can go West or East.  Which way do you go?"

This doesn't seem to have anything to do with illusionism, per se.  In fact, I'm not sure what you're getting at with this.

An illusionist GM is going to do something like come up with the following ideas:

• A mad cap chase scene through cluttered back alleys
• A villain with a top hat and a straight razor
• A confrontation with clockwork monkeys on the Eiffel Tower.

All s/he does is then make sure that these events occur and elements are introduced at some point in the session.  This can work with meaningful PC decisions that dictate the direction of the scenario.

Say one PC is interested in researching a strange botanical specimen they found on their last adventure.  The illusionist GM might have it stolen by a clockwork monkey which leaps out the window...  into some cluttered back alleys.

As described, that sounds like a new adventure seed, not illusionism. It turns into the latter when the players are encouraged to narrate all their efforts to catch the monkey (which may or may not be supported by diced skill checks or whatever), but the GM knows in advance that the monkey will get away. IOW the whole chase is just hokum and the players are chumps.

QuotePlease don't conflate limited choices with meaningless choices.

If I did this I didn't mean to. Meaningless choices is what Illusionim espoused by RedFox gives, and I think I only mentioned them in response to him or someone else mentioning them. Limited choices are what dungeons give, and depending on the layout of the dungeon your choices may be meaningless or they may be constrined to a very tight (or even singular) path with lots of side paths that are fun but don't advance to the goal (whatever it may be).

Quote1. To defend illusionistic GMing by claiming that GMing is impossible otherwise, and people who think the players are making real choices are just deluding themselves. (This is how I read a great deal of David Berkman's writing on rec.games.frp.advocacy, back in the day.)

UnlessI suddenly developed a second personality I know I never did that. You won't catch me defending illusionism, and certainly not by saying it's the only option. I'm so far on the opposite end of the spectrum I can't even see illusions from where I'm at.

Quote2. To attack any kind of constraint at all as if were railroading or "killer GM syndrome". This is how I read some of the "Forge" arguments these days.

I'm not doing that either. I've said several times that contraints aren't necessarily bad, and theat when I run I try to maintain pure choices on the part of the players but it's hard to do completely so I use constraints when I have to, want to, or am just too lazy/busy to prep much for that week.

Okay, massively crossed signals apparently. I don't want to harp excessively on it (I only want to harp moderately), but way back at the beginning when I brought up dungeons, it was to compare them to the type of adventure described in John Nephew's essay.

Essentially, dungeons: adventures with walls as constraints. They can contain false choices, like any other adventure, but they don't have to.

"Storytelling" modules/GMing as taught by Nephew: adventures whose structure is defined by false choices.

In other words, sure, dungeons don't confer freedom in themselves, but unlike the methods espoused by the "winging it" essay, they give a beginning group a way to prepare and run a manageable adventure that doesn't rely on nullifying and subverting the importance of player-character actions.

QuoteI try to maintain pure choices on the part of the players but it's hard to do completely so I use constraints when I have to, want to, or am just too lazy/busy to prep much for that week.

Actually I'm not talking about "pure choices" vs. handing the players a goal to accomplish, though that's related. I'm talking about where the player balks at any mystery that has a definite solution, or at the idea that the game-world might not work in some preconceived way (particularly a way that might damage the player's vision of their PC's coolness).

Quote from: Elliot WilenActually I'm not talking about "pure choices" vs. handing the players a goal to accomplish, though that's related. I'm talking about where the player balks at any mystery that has a definite solution, or at the idea that the game-world might not work in some preconceived way (particularly a way that might damage the player's vision of their PC's coolness).

Yeah man. I assume the 'Tard doesn't use rules or anything like that that might constrain choice.

QuoteI am so tired of Tim's Gaming Dungeon! Every Saturday night is Open Gaming Night, where folks can come in and use some of the tables in back to play whatever game they want. I've tried to run Nobilis a few times, but it seems like I never quite get there before Tim has all the tables reserved. Maybe next week!

Anyhow, I thought it would be sort of a lark to jump into one of the Dungeons & Dragons games that some of the less-awakened gamers were running. They had pregenerated characters, which I didn't mind—I do so enjoy a challenge! I made sure to ask a lot of questions about my character's background, motivation—I don't think Greg the DM was used to such an outstanding, thoughtful gamer, because after about a half hour, he waved his hand and said, "Dude, your relative introspection level or whatever is whatever you want it to be. Or an 18. Let's just start gaming".

So, anyhow, we set off—I was the party's dwarf fighter, and there was an elven cleric, a human ranger, and a gnome wizard, too, if I recall. Our party's quest involved retrieving some rubies from a crypt under this large metropolis—lame, huh? I asked why he didn't just include a big red dragon while he was at it lol! No one else said anything, but I think they were on my side.

We get into the bottom of the crypt, and the GM starts to describe the room we're in. Once he paused, I started adding details, too, like a large acid pit in the middle of the room and shredded purple curtains on the wall and a large glowing battleaxe stuck in a giant dragon skull. The GM stopped the game and said, "What the hell are you doing, dude?"

I rolled my eyes at the poor schlub. "It's called shared narrative control, and it helps build better stories!"

"Well stop it," is all he said.

So after that, a large Ogre burst through the door and starts tearing apart our party. The cleric wanted to try a spell she'd been saving, but I had a better plan. "I take out my alchemy set and mix up a batch of Ogre Poison, put it in a flask, and throw it at him!"

The GM said, "What the hell? A) You'd didn't take ANY of the skills or equipment to be able to do that, and B) it isn't your turn!"

Exasperated at this 20-year veteran ignaramus, I said, "Who cares about skills? I'm adding it in to make the story better, or are you not aware of the Professor's exhaustive papers on the matter? And don't tell me you're still using initiative! What are you people, 13?" (As it turns out, one of them was).

Well, that pretty much ended the game right there. Tim came over and suggested that I find a group more ready to receive advanced gaming theory. He suggested The Gamertopia on East 14th Street. I guess I'll have to check it out.

I bet they didn't get anywhere without my Ogre Poison.

Quote from: Elliot WilenAs described, that sounds like a new adventure seed, not illusionism. It turns into the latter when the players are encouraged to narrate all their efforts to catch the monkey (which may or may not be supported by diced skill checks or whatever), but the GM knows in advance that the monkey will get away. IOW the whole chase is just hokum and the players are chumps.

Hmm, that doesn't sound much like illusionism.  That sounds like straight out-and-out railroading.

Please tell me we're not getting into yet another conflation of railroading with something else in this thread.

I love you Erik Boielle. But not in a gay way.

...


...Okay, kinda in a gay way.