Quote from: RedFoxHmm, 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.

Just back away slowly...(as I do likewise)

And tell me what it is about that setup which you consider illusionism.

Quote from: Elliot WilenJust back away slowly...(as I do likewise)

And tell me what it is about that setup which you consider illusionism.

To go way back to the dungeon example, choosing one door or another is still going to lead to what the GM wants it to lead to.  Everything's mutable based on the needs of the scenario.  Nothing is set in stone.  What you present to the players is the illusion of a contiguous reality.

Quote from: RedFoxTo go way back to the dungeon example, choosing one door or another is still going to lead to what the GM wants it to lead to.  Everything's mutable based on the needs of the scenario.  Nothing is set in stone.  What you present to the players is the illusion of a contiguous reality.

The question is, do both doors IMMEDIATELY lead to the same thing, or do they lead to separate paths of events which EVENTUALLY lead to the same thing?

I'd say the latter is more "herding" than anything else, while the former is outright railroading, or something akin to 3 card monte.

Okay, Fox, I just reviewed part of the thread, and I don't see how that squares with your acknowledgment that dungeons give players meaningful choices.

Of course I go into this with the assumption that the GM isn't going to be modifying the dungeon map and encounter key on the fly, except as part of logical triggers (such as denizens being attracted by the noise of a fight, or some magical trap that scrambles the dungeon). If the GM actively modifies the dungeon in play, to present a sequence of encounters or whatever, thus making the players' choices and actions irrelevent to the flow of the game, then that's what I think of as illusionism. (I think of railroading as unsubtly taking away player choice, usually without the player's consent; illusionism to me is a covert version of railroading--instead of openly taking away choice, the GM makes it look like the players have choices but the choices don't matter.)

Quote from: Elliot WilenOkay, massively crossed signals apparently.

No prob. I was a major factor in it with poor terminology.

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

Agreed. For my group, change it to "they damn well better not have false choices."

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

Screw that noise.

QuoteIn 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.

Agreed. They can be more or less constrictive, but an organic/living dungeon laid out in an accessible pattern can grant pretty close to pure choice.

QuoteActually 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).

Well, if the guy doesn't want to solve the mystery because he's sure Jeeves did it that's his perogative. Whatever the results of the mystery not being solved are will happen, and the world will move on. for the other one, if a player wants to balk at the game world because it makes him look uncool he can either lump it, find a new group, or run his own game so I can bitch about how his system makes me look uncool.

Quote from: GabrielThe question is, do both doors IMMEDIATELY lead to the same thing, or do they lead to separate paths of events which EVENTUALLY lead to the same thing?

Or more to the point, who says they're going to lead to the same thing at all?

Quote from: Elliot WilenIf the GM actively modifies the dungeon in play, to present a sequence of encounters or whatever, thus making the players' choices and actions irrelevent to the flow of the game, then that's what I think of as illusionism. (I think of railroading as unsubtly taking away player choice, usually without the player's consent; illusionism to me is a covert version of railroading--instead of openly taking away choice, the GM makes it look like the players have choices but the choices don't matter.)

See, I (with my slightly illiterate terminology problems) would say those are both the same thing. Railroading actually comes out ahead in that comparison because at least it's honest.

Quote from: Elliot WilenOr more to the point, who says they're going to lead to the same thing at all?

Redfox did:

Quote from: RedFoxchoosing one door or another is still going to lead to what the GM wants it to lead to.

Basically, player choice is irrelevant.  What is behind both doors is what the GM wants to be there independent of which door the players choose.  And that's pretty much the absolute definition of railroading.

Quote from: James McMurray(stuff)

Whoa, agreement whiplash!

BTW, about that last dude, the one who doesn't like mysteries or who wants to have authority over the setting so his character can be cool (at least by being able to resort to the dice if the GM is blocking)...I don't really have a beef with that last sensibility either. It's even a style of game I think I like. What I don't care for is the assertion that if the game isn't set up that way, if the GM can "say no", harbor secrets, or make up the world, ipso facto the game forces the players into "playing the GM's story".

Oh yeah, it's cool if the game is set up so that coolness matters: shades give bonuses to hit, katanas cut through battleships, and trenchcoats are the ultimate adventure wear. In that sort of campaign instead of complaining it isn't cool, I'll give him a bonus if he can convince me why it is cool.

Quote from: James McMurraySee, I (with my slightly illiterate terminology problems) would say those are both the same thing. Railroading actually comes out ahead in that comparison because at least it's honest.

I see it the same way.  I usually think of "railroading" as the sneaky-sneaky kind that sounds like "illusionism".  

If the GM is straight up telling the players: "Okay, let's get started!  The party has been hired to guard a caravan heading to the village of Hommlet..." -- that's cool.  

If there are two doors, and regardless of which one the players open, they find Encounter X -- that's not cool.  You'd be better to just tell them: "The party is exploring an ancient ruins, when you enter a room and find Encounter X..." -- hey, it's cool again!

But then you get "why is my character here?" and "what's my motivation for the scene?"

Quote from: James McMurraySee, I (with my slightly illiterate terminology problems) would say those are both the same thing. Railroading actually comes out ahead in that comparison because at least it's honest.

Yes, I don't think I excluded the possibility of "good railroading", and yes, railroading in my mind is basically the same as illusionism, except the former is upfront and the latter is covert.

Quote from: Elliot WilenOkay, Fox, I just reviewed part of the thread, and I don't see how that squares with your acknowledgment that dungeons give players meaningful choices.

...mm'wah?  Dungeons are a backdrop.  You can run them using an illusionism style (probably map-less) or no.

Quote from: GabrielBasically, player choice is irrelevant.  What is behind both doors is what the GM wants to be there independent of which door the players choose.  And that's pretty much the absolute definition of railroading.

Not at all.  Railroading is obstructing player choice.  Illusionism is presenting the illusion of choice.

Quote from: GabrielRedfox did

Yeah, I mean that I don't see any reason to go with that assumption, which he's now putting forward. And I'm getting whiplash in the other direction, because till now I thought I agreed with him.