Quote from: StuartAs long as the player never finds out it was an illusion everything is cool?

I can agree with this, at least as far as cool from the player's perspective goes. It's dishonest as hell and disrespectful too, but if the player doesn't know there's no change to his fun.

The problem though is that most illusionist GMs* are not as clever as they think they are. If the things you do don't seem to have an effect, smart players will notice.

* I base this on my experiences that all illusionist GMs I've met have been poor at it. I know which are which because I don't game at cons, I game with people I know, and we discuss GMing styles. If I gamed at cons it's possible I might come across a few that are really good at it, that I don't have time to get to know enough to acclimitize my BS meter to them. Hence the "most" instead of "all." It's possible that almost all of them really are as smart as they think they are, but given my understanding of human egos I doubt it.

Also note that this is not meant to say that anyone on this board that is an illusionist GM sucks at their job (unless I've gamed with them and don't realize it). I have no way of knowing how good you are at it.

Quote from: James McMurrayThe problem though is that most illusionist GMs* are not as clever as they think they are. If the things you do don't seem to have an effect, smart players will notice.

Which harkens back to one of my first comments in this thread, although I did hyperbolize it a bit.

But it is fairly truthful to say that GMs thinking they're being illusionists are not nearly as slick as they believe they are.

Quote from: James McMurrayI can agree with this, at least as far as cool from the player's perspective goes. It's dishonest as hell and disrespectful too, but if the player doesn't know there's no change to his fun.

This sort of thing is why meaningful discourse on this subject is impossible.  Let alone the further hyperbole about how illusionism GMs suck at what they do.

I swear, the fanaticism on this board is ridiculously thick.

Quote from: RedFoxThis sort of thing is why meaningful discourse on this subject is impossible.  Let alone the further hyperbole about how illusionism GMs suck at what they do.

I swear, the fanaticism on this board is ridiculously thick.

The leadership sets the tone.

Quote from: RedFoxThis sort of thing is why meaningful discourse on this subject is impossible.

Dude, if you can't understand that leading people to believe something is true (their choices matter) when it isn't (their choices are illusionary) is dishonest, then you're absolutely right that no meaningful discourse can happen.

Furthermore, if you're lying to someone, you obviously don't respect their ability to handle the truth. That's, you know, kinda what lying is, especially when you're "doing it for their own good."

QuoteLet alone the further hyperbole about how illusionism GMs suck at what they do.

Yeah, because obviously when I said that I meant every GM. I mean, it's not like I qualified my remarks to specify that I was only working under my own experiences or anything. Oh... wait... Huh, whaddaya know.

Quote from: RedFoxThis sort of thing is why meaningful discourse on this subject is impossible.  Let alone the further hyperbole about how illusionism GMs suck at what they do.

I swear, the fanaticism on this board is ridiculously thick.

Are there really any posters out there who would describe themselves as "Pro"-illusionism, though?  I mean, I would think that even those who do not feel it to be a cardinal sin of Roleplaying would still agree that it is a sometimes useful but difficult and often regrettable tool at best... wouldn't they?
is there really anyone out there who thinks "Yea, not giving my players any choices but making them think they have freedom is the way to go! Woo hoo!!"?

RPGPundit

That's pretty much been RedFox's stance all along in this discussion.

As a technique... a tool in the toolbox, sure.  I would.  It's a positive alternative to pixel-bitching, and in its most useful incarnation it's no more sinister than taking players' ideas and running with them.

Ah, but Stuart... Game DO cheat. You've grow to accept that as natural and you don't think of it as cheating anymore. Likewise, many gamers have long since come to terms with the fact that GM's occasionally cheat, and they don't view it as cheating.

Let's take something everyone should know at least a little about, if only due to ubiquity. The World Of Warcraft online.  Your character progresses by gaining cooler gear and by leveling. Your level caps out at 60.  Simple enough.

Yet there are NPC's all over the place that for no random reason at all are level 61 or 62. Some of them are creatures, making it plausable that they fall under another set of rules. Others are not, they are as human or 'character like' as anything else.

This is accepted as how the game works. Only, the GM is technically cheating by making characters that don't follow the rules that the players must abide by. They aren't dependent upon gear (because then that gear could be looted en toto), they are just simply better than any single player could ever be.  This is because the alternative to making them challenging is to make lots of them, and the game would slow down.

I know, you'll say it CAN'T be a cheat, just like all those special abilities they have that you can never learn aren't cheats either. That's just the way the rules are written.

Ah. But amazingly enough, most RPG's include rules that allow the GM to cheat, advice that encourages it.  So again, it's not really cheating because the book allows it.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Quote from: RedFoxI swear, the fanaticism on this board is ridiculously thick.

Well now ... to be fair, when you're at page 40+ of a spiralling rhetorical slap-fight, a lot of reasonable people will have retreated to just watching and munching popcorn.  You get a ... whaddyacall ... selection bias among the people who are still posting seriously.

Quote from: SpikeAh. But amazingly enough, most RPG's include rules that allow the GM to cheat, advice that encourages it. So again, it's not really cheating because the book allows it.

I think few RPGs (thankfully) encourage GM's to give players the choice of:  Door A or Door B (which is exactly the same as Door A).

If it's a "necessary evil"... that's one thing.  But it shouldn't be something to encourage, and if you never need to use it -- all the better.

I almost want to start a new thread about this...
GM-Advice in general is a crapshoot. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad.

The worst case is when it looks 'official' and it's just really bad advice.

:wtfsign:

What the fuck is this thread about? I can't make sense of the title, or any of the 400+ posts. It's a Prussian muddle. No wonder they lost the war. Twice.

QuoteIt's a Prussian muddle. No wonder they lost the war. Twice.

It´s easy:
John Nephew wrote an article into a D&D module, where he recommends the use of heavy duty illusionism. He also ran around the gaming advocacy  group and proclaimed it was art.
His testplayers were NickChick and Mark Rein-Hagen, also themselves later great illusionists and railroaders.

The rest of the thread is a totally ridiculous discussion about railroading, and now illusionism.

Questions?

My take on this is it's shocking how we see some of those same names that we know today on a document that old. I used to often wonder how the 90s got so strange and un-fun so quickly- by 1997 or so the biggest runaway success in the roleplaying world was Deadlands, for pete's sake.

I previously believed that it was simple evolution. "It just turned out that way"

I now believe that a series of things happened at once, but it mainly boils down to:
1) the largest RPG company was mismanaged and subverted.

2) People with bad ideas became influential.