Quote from: J ArcaneToo much damn extremism on these boards.

Amen.

Extremism is the foible of the fanatic.

Quote from: RedFoxThere's a difference between a challenge and a competition.

Dude, don't make me explain this shit.

What shit? The English language, wherein one definition of challenge is competition? Or perhaps where one definition of competition is "a test of skill or ability."

Or do you mean that because something isn't man vs. man it's not competitive? BS. At the very least it's competing with yourself.

edit: added definition of competition and made it two paragraphs for clarity.

QuoteMost folks are willing to agree that RPG's aren't really meant to be PvP. Seriously. The GM is not the enemy, the other players are not the enemy.

This is true with most games, although there are some that are specifically designed to allow for a GM vs. Player mentality.

QuoteIf you view RPG's as player vs. GM, then certainly you'll think the cheating is ass

True, but the converse of that "If you think cheating is ass, you view RPGs as player vs. GM" is not true. You didn't imply that it was, I just wanted to point it out.

Quote from: James McMurrayTrue, but the converse of that "If you think cheating is ass, you view RPGs as player vs. GM" is not true. You didn't imply that it was, I just wanted to point it out.

A valid point.  I like to think of it as mathmatics. You can divide x by y and get z, but you can not divide y by x and get z as well.

Sometimes you can change the equation so that it does work, making it multiplication instead of division, but then our analogy goes wonky.

I could do better ones, moving the plus and the equal but nothing else, say... but really, who needs it.

Quote from: J ArcaneI think what the real problem is here is that you have some severe trust issues regarding authority and the GM position. And no ruleset is ever going to fix that

I think the problem is you may not be following the discussion...  If many of us have said our "fun" in the game stems from overcoming the challenges in the game (solving the puzzles, if you will) -- and we're saying that an Illusionist approach takes that away from us... that's not a "severe trust issue" with authority / the GM.  It's not a question of feeling "threatened" by the GM attacking the player's characters -- it's almost the exact opposite -- not wanting the GM to remove the challenges in the game.

I guess the illusionist approach is just a different kind of fun.  If you want a puzzle/challenge/game sort of fun the illusionist/story kind of fun won't do it for you.  If you want story more than puzzle/challenge/game, then illusionist/story is just as good -- it's still story.

Quote from: SpikeNow, the GM is the computer, really. He gets to cheat as much as he can get away with, as long as it makes the game a challenge and fun. Pay enough attention and you'll see it all the time in games. The enemy is always cheating somehow. Openly or subtly. It's often an attempt to overcompensate for less than optimal AI, othertimes its meant to provide real challenges.

An interesting comparison.

Although when you think about it... a computer program is just a set of rules.  The computer isn't really cheating -- it's following a set of very complicated rules that you might not understand.  Learning how the computer's rules work is usually part of the challenge in a videogame.

And more specific to this discussion:

West of House
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
There are two small mailboxes here.

> Choose left mailbox
> Choose right mailbox

Quote from: StuartI guess the illusionist approach is just a different kind of fun.  If you want a puzzle/challenge/game sort of fun the illusionist/story kind of fun won't do it for you.  If you want story more than puzzle/challenge/game, then illusionist/story is just as good -- it's still story.

I think, perhaps, the part I'm having trouble with is the assertion that puzzle/challenge/fun and illusionism are mutually exclusive.  At least, I think that's your assertion.  And I think to say something like that is too binary for the amazing continuum of play given the matrix of playing styles and available games.

QuoteI guess the illusionist approach is just a different kind of fun. If you want a puzzle/challenge/game sort of fun the illusionist/story kind of fun won't do it for you. If you want story more than puzzle/challenge/game, then illusionist/story is just as good -- it's still story.

Now who's not reading.  I haven't said one fucking thing about story.  I've been talking about FUN.  You know, that thing we're all supposed to be gaming for?  

There's a difference.  And sometimes, slavishly obsessive adherence to the rules, produces less fun, than actually thinking critically, finding what works and what doesn't, and playing THAT.

Sometimes, that means fudging a roll or a rule, because the the by-the-book result would be stupid.  Sometimes that means coming up with stuff on the fly because it provides more freedom to repsond to the players than slavishly devoting yourself to a written module or set of notes.

But as far as you seem to be concerned, ANYTHING that involves the DM making his own decisions about the game is bad.  I'm inclined to wonder how much luck you have getting groups, because frankly your wierd paranoia about everything the DM does wouldn't serve you well in any of the games I've been in.

Quote from: James J SkachI think, perhaps, the part I'm having trouble with is the assertion that puzzle/challenge/fun and illusionism are mutually exclusive. At least, I think that's your assertion. And I think to say something like that is too binary for the amazing continuum of play given the matrix of playing styles and available games.

I think if you had... say 100 "decisions" in a game, and 99 of them were legit and only 1 of them was an "illusion", that would be a very different experience from a game with 99 illusionary decisions.

The only problem would be if you knew there were ANY illusions... you might not get as much satisfaction from the legit decisions because you'd second guess whether they were real or not.

Quote from: StuartI think if you had... say 100 "decisions" in a game, and 99 of them were legit and only 1 of them was an "illusion", that would be a very different experience from a game with 99 illusionary decisions.

The only problem would be if you knew there were ANY illusions... you might not get as much satisfaction from the legit decisions because you'd second guess whether they were real or not.

Where's the tipping point? Does it matter?  This seems to me to be one of those preference things, to a large extent.

It's the - ok I'll use the term "extreme" - view that you seem to assert that says once even though those 99 decision were legit, the 100th makes the game story based - I think that's the place where I'm having a problem.

Quote from: James J SkachI think, perhaps, the part I'm having trouble with is the assertion that puzzle/challenge/fun and illusionism are mutually exclusive.  At least, I think that's your assertion.  And I think to say something like that is too binary for the amazing continuum of play given the matrix of playing styles and available games.

I believe the statements made, at least in regards to fun, have been that Stuart's fun and illusionism are mutually exclusive. Nobody has said that it's impossible for anyone to have fun with that style of play.

Quote from: James McMurrayI believe the statements made, at least in regards to fun, have been that Stuart's fun and illusionism are mutually exclusive. Nobody has said that it's impossible for anyone to have fun with that style of play.

Quote from: StuartIf you want a puzzle/challenge/game sort of fun the illusionist/story kind of fun won't do it for you.

I beg to differ.

When I said:
"If you want a puzzle/challenge/game sort of fun the illusionist/story kind of fun won't do it for you."

I meant:
If the "reward" from the game that a player values most is the feeling of satisfaction in having overcome the challenges of the game, then the alternative reward(s) offered by illusionist/story, while real, are different and for that player less valued.

It's the reason whoever it was that told the story of their Dad letting them win at Risk was initially so happy (big reward) and later totally crushed (it was an illusion -- big reward was taken away).

This is not to say that a player might not decide that the reward(s) offered by illusionist/story are so much MORE than they expected that it makes up for the loss of the reward(s) offered by real challenges.  This would be people not caring that it was all an illusion because it was "the best" D&D game they ever played (or whatever).

Far from me being the extremist/evangelist, I'm saying that if your group likes the Illusionist approach, then that's cool.  

This probably bears repeating:

QuoteI'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.

This means that if the player wants to get satisfaction from overcoming challenges -- they're going to be let down if/when they realize there was no real challenge at all.

QuoteIf 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.

In hindsight I think "Improvising and Storytelling" are bad words for some of the people on this site and perhaps leaving that part out would be better... but the general idea is there  -- if everyone is into this kind of gaming, then that's cool.

The heart of what I'm saying is this:  people should know what kind of game they're sitting down to play.

Honestly -- how can you argue with that???

Quote from: StuartHonestly -- how can you argue with that???

I'm not.

I'm "arguing" with this:

Quote from: StuartIf you want a puzzle/challenge/game sort of fun the illusionist/story kind of fun won't do it for you.

And this:

Quote from: StuartIf the "reward" from the game that a player values most is the feeling of satisfaction in having overcome the challenges of the game, then the alternative reward(s) offered by illusionist/story, while real, are different and for that player less valued.

And finally, this:

Quote from: StuartFar from me being the extremist/evangelist, I'm saying that if your group likes the Illusionist approach, then that's cool.  

This probably bears repeating:

This means that if the player wants to get satisfaction from overcoming challenges -- they're going to be let down if/when they realize there was no real challenge at all.

In hindsight I think "Improvising and Storytelling" are bad words for some of the people on this site and perhaps leaving that part out would be better... but the general idea is there  -- if everyone is into this kind of gaming, then that's cool.

Because what it seems you are saying is that if there's any situation where the GM "fudges," it's illusionism, and you might as well play a Story game.

Now I'm as far from "Story" gaming as you can get.  Ok, that's a bit of a stretch.  But it seems to me that this binary switch - the moment any small decision is made to help along the plot/story/scenario, even if the rest of the game is about as puzzle/etc., makes it illusionism, is extreme.

I'm not saying you're putting it down or saying it's derogatory in any way.  But I think many will take it as an insult that you call their kind of gaming is Story because they fudge here and there.

Quote from: James J SkachBecause what it seems you are saying is that if there's any situation where the GM "fudges," it's illusionism, and you might as well play a Story game.

Dunno about Stuart, but here's my thought.

Technically, yes, you're right.  Any time the GM ignores the normal, accepted rules of the game in order to modify an event solely based on GM preference, then you've taken a turn into storyland.  But that doesn't mean the whole game has become a story game.  It just means you've steered towards the story side of town.

It's also important what is being fudged over.  Depending on the fudge the change of course to storyville may be sharp or mild.

But it's not really about the GM fudging.  It's much more about how much impact the players have, and if their actions are allowed to affect things.

Using my own terms for a moment, I'd say that GM-enabling illusionism is mostly bad.  It's really just a fancy way of saying that what the GM has planned comes first, regardless of player input.  On the other hand, I'd say that Player-enabling illusionism is mostly good.  It encourages the players to participate and do things.  And while the player's plans don't face an objective measure of quality, they do encounter a semi-Darwinian competition against the other players' ideas for which one the GM likes best and finds most entertaining.  The GM ultimately decides, but he's choosing a best path determined by the players.

Both are bad when the players know what is going on, the illusion shattered.  In GM-enabling illusionism, the players will realize their choices ultimately don't matter, and participation will be discouraged.  In Player-enabling illusionism, the players may become lax and complacent knowing that they just have to eventually come up with something 'good enough' to move things along.  The won't have to stretch their abilities, and they may also try to use their player-enablement to warp the game itself.

You're arguing with this?

QuoteIf the "reward" from the game that a player values most is the feeling of satisfaction in having overcome the challenges of the game, then the alternative reward(s) offered by illusionist/story, while real, are different and for that player less valued.

So you're telling me... what...?  All rewards are equal to all people? Illusionist/story rewards are always more valued than other rewards?  As long as the player never finds out it was an illusion everything is cool? :confused: