Quote from: StuartMy issue with it is only if the other player's don't know you're doing it.  In that case, they're expecting you to be playing by the rules, and you're not.  And lying to them as well.  That sucks -- there's no two ways about it.

Rules?

Dude.  GM.  The rule s/he follows is: "Make it cool for the players."

You as players don't have a right to even look behind the screen.  That's why the GM wears the viking hat.  

Tell your players ahead of time.  They can save some money on books and dice.

Quote from: James J SkachIs the implication that doing it any other way, i.e. having a specific BBEG and allowing the players to explore the scenrio as set-up by the GM (even to the point where they "go off the reservation") is illusionism?

I get the sense, and this goes back to the specturm versus binary, that it's actually the people arguing spectrum that are actually saying "if there's any constraint, whatsoever, it has some railroad/illusionism." The only "pure" way is through complete freeform.

That can't really be the argument, can it?

I don't know what everyone else's point is exactly , but my attitude is two part.  Call a spade a spade, for one thing.  But just because it's a spade doesn't define it as purely good or bad (despite what some of my earlier remarks would indicate).

Sometimes railroading is fun.  If the scenery is pretty and the company is good, a train ride can be a positive experience.  My definition of railroading is when player choice is not a factor in how the adventure unfolds.  

A milder form of railroading is something I call "herding".  In this option, player choice does matter but the general course doesn't alter.  There are two doors before you.  There are different events which happen depending on which door you pick, but after a while they both lead to the showdown with the sorceror.

This thread has introduced me to the term "illusionism."  Illusionism can have two forms.  It can be creatively driven by the GM, in which case it's really a fancy name for railroading or herding.  Or it can be creatively driven by the players, which will have or lack merit based on the improvisational ability of the participants.

Of course, none of these things exist independently.  Everyone uses a mix.  (Well, except for that catpissman with his cool Deadlands GM-PC based on Jonah Hex.  He's just a railroader.)

Let me use another example that I'm familiar with.  Your character is naked in a 10x10x10 cell with no exits.  What do you do?

Everyone I've ever met who uses that shitty opening does it the same way.  It's a railroad.  What the player does has no bearing whatsoever on what happens.  Rescue is always achieved only after the GM decides to allow the player to bask in the glory of a GM-PC who rescues the helpless PC.

However, it could just as easily be run in an illusionst mode and made player enabling.  The GM has no idea how the player will get his character out of the cell.  The PC searches and comes up with ideas and the GM listens.  The PC experiments, and the GM says to himself "that sounds cool."  Suddenly the PC has engineered his escape.  The GM congratulates the player on solving the difficult puzzle.  In this version the player goes from being a helpless participant to driving all the action.

Quote from: James J SkachI get the sense, and this goes back to the specturm versus binary, that it's actually the people arguing spectrum that are actually saying "if there's any constraint, whatsoever, it has some railroad/illusionism." The only "pure" way is through complete freeform.

That can't really be the argument, can it?

Yes and no. The only "pure" way is through complete freeform, but pure in this case only means "free from constraints." It has none of the positive connotations, and hence none of the negative connotations from "impure." In other words, the only way to be completely "railroadish" free is freeform, but that's by no means the only way to have a good game.

Stuart, you are no longer my hero.  

I can't even fully believe that I'm hearing someone describe such a fundamental GM skill as improvisation with words like "fake" and "lying".  

Seems to me from what I'm reading that you need to just get over your wierd childhood hangups.

If you had fun in the game, then who the fuck cares where the ideas that created it came from?  Doing shit completely on the fly is one of the most basic of GM skills.  I'd go so far as to say that just about every game I've ever played in had at least some element of this.

You've gone off the deep end into extremism again brother.

Quote from: J ArcaneI can't even fully believe that I'm hearing someone describe such a fundamental GM skill as improvisation with words like "fake" and "lying".  

Yep, that's exactly what he said. If you define improvisation as "throw the rules out the window and ignore the dice rolls." I don't think that's the standard definition of the word though.

Quote from: James McMurrayYep, that's exactly what he said. If you define improvisation as "throw the rules out the window and ignore the dice rolls." I don't think that's the standard definition of the word though.

http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=49956&postcount=327

I think the problem there was that Stuart came into the session expecting a strategic challenge, but there wasn't any, really. Possibly not even a tactical challenge if the GM was modulating the encounter difficulty on the fly.

Basically when I hear these stories of GMs pretending to work from prepared materials, but actually just winging it in a certain way, I have to ask: would the game work just as well if the player knew beforehand that it was all being improvised? I think in many cases, not.

(By a certain way of winging it, I'm mainly thinking of situations where the player thinks there's a challenge, but the GM is actually just manipulating things to draw the player along, basically putting his hand on the scales to keep things balanced until enough dramatic tension has built up.)

Quote from: J ArcaneI can't even fully believe that I'm hearing someone describe such a fundamental GM skill as improvisation with words like "fake" and "lying".

I'm not talking about improvisation where it's normally expected in an RPG.  Of course I expect the GM to improvise all sorts of things.  What's the bartender's name?  What colour are the goblin's socks?  Is there any straw on the floor in this room?

What *shouldn't* be improvised are things the players believe are already determined before the game begins.  If the players believe the GM is following all the rules of the game -- they should be!  If there is a choice between two or more options, they shouldn't all lead to the same result.  Even if it's an improvised choice -- the GM should think up the results of door A and door B, and stick to it when the player's make their choice.

Improvisation isn't my complaint at all.  I'm arguing that the GM should be honest with the players.  If they encounter two doors and the GM asks them which they choose, and they spend some time debating the merits of each one -- there should actually be a difference there.

Like I said in another thread -- if you really want an improv / storytelling game, why not just play one?  In all honesty, they're superior to traditional RPGs for that kind of thing.

:rolleyes:

"You don't play the way I do, so go play something else!"

So you're telling me that, if I run a pickup game, where the story and events are basically done on the fly, or even a regular game where I do this, I'm a damn liar and a fake.  

Frankly sir, you can take your attitude and stick up your ass.

Quote from: J ArcaneSo you're telling me that, if I run a pickup game, where the story and events are basically done on the fly, or even a regular game where I do this, I'm a damn liar and a fake

I'm saying, specifically, and please read this carefully:

If you lead the players to believe the choices they make in the game or their luck with the dice have an affect on what happens in the game, and their success or failure, when in fact it doesn't have any affect and you're just telling the big improvised story that you want to tell... then yes, you're lying to them and giving them a fake game.

If you let the player's know that you're going to play fast and loose with the rules, dice, and results of their actions -- but that you hope this will make the game a lot more fun for them -- then you're being fair and honest with them.  The game may or may not be fake, or possibly just about entirely different things (eg. improvisation and storytelling).

I can't possibly see how someone could get pissy about that statement, or view it as "extremist" in any way.

Since when the fuck does improvising the whole game automatically mean the player's choices have no weight?  What if said choices in fact affect whatever I pull out of my ass for the next part of the game?  And where the fuck does ignoring the dice or anything like that enter into the very example you brought up and that I took issue with?

All you described is a scenario I have both run myself, and played in countless times.  No real notes, the GM just wings the whole thing.  Nothing about fudging die rolls or anytihng like that.  You seem pissed just because the GM didn't actually have any written notes.  Boo fucking hoo.  

And you really need to learn ro read what the fuck you're spewing if you're that surprised by my reaction to your behavior.  You honestly expect telling someone to go find another hobby is going to be taken lightly?

Quote from: J ArcaneSince when the fuck does improvising the whole game automatically mean the player's choices have no weight?

where in the "please read this very carefully" did he say that?

QuoteAll you described is a scenario I have both run myself, and played in countless times.  No real notes, the GM just wings the whole thing.  Nothing about fudging die rolls or anytihng like that.  You seem pissed just because the GM didn't actually have any written notes.  Boo fucking hoo.  

It seems to me that he's pissed because the GM made it appear that he had written notes, that the world was laid out ahead of time, and that right and left were two different things. Then he later found out that there was no world, were no notes, and right and left were identical.

QuoteIt seems to me that he's pissed because the GM made it appear that he had written notes, that the world was laid out ahead of time, and that right and left were two different things. Then he later found out that there was no world, were no notes, and right and left were identical.

I feel a certain reasonableness in concluding that Stuart is not, in fact, a mind reader.  Thus I am inclined to wonder how he would actually know that, given that all he stated the GM said was that he didn't actually have any notes.  That doesn't automatically equate to "OMG U R LIAR ALL CHOICE IS MEANINGLESS" except perhaps in the mind of a hyberbolic 11 year old with no sense of perspective.

Here's an idea, instead of lashing out at him when you don't know the answer toa question about something he brought up, you could ask. Or, you could do it the True RpgSite Way and lash out, then ask.