Quote from: StuartPlease read all my posts as they are actually written.  If you think I'm implying something that's not written, please ask me before jumping to conclusions.

Do you have any idea just how much normal communication involve implication?

Consider. I can call someone a woman, or I can call her a lady. I can call her a girl, or a female.

All of these words can simply mean a human being of the feminine gender.  Each however, has layers of implied meaning.  Much of it is contextual. If you really want me to ask you each and every time I think you are implying something to get what you actually mean, then you have no idea what you are asking for.  You'd need your own subforum just to handle all the posts that were nothing but asking for clarification.

You use strong, absolute language in calling GM dice fudging wrong, dishonest, immoral. Then you go on to say you weren't implying it is wrong? :rolleyes:

Quote from: SpikeYou use strong, absolute language in calling GM dice fudging wrong, dishonest, immoral. Then you go on to say you weren't implying it is wrong?

I need to go back and check my previous posts.  I don't think I ever said it was immoral and if I did I must have been on crack.

EDIT:  

QuoteYou use strong, absolute language in calling GM dice fudging wrong, dishonest, immoral. Then you go on to say you weren't implying it is wrong?

I'll have to double check this as well, but I'm pretty sure I said it was wrong if the player's are lead to believe it's not taking place at all.  And wrong in the sense that it will spoil the game for them -- not wrong in the sense that the person doing it is immoral / evil.  

I certainly said that player's agreeing to illusionism made it perfectly acceptable.  

Due to the recent trend to fork discussion across 4 different threads, I'm not sure what bits of the overall conversation were in which thread -- but it was generally all the same people involved.

Quote from: jrientsStalin always railroaded his players.

Or so I hear.

Or was it illusory?

Definitely a GM-enabler while saying it's all for the players.

Quote from: StuartI need to go back and check my previous posts.  I don't think I ever said it was immoral and if I did I must have been on crack.

Did you ever use immoral? No. I see from your post that it's the only word you took exception with.

However, you have used the langauge of the moralist. Fake, lying, cheating.

And after Doug only knows how many posts you come back in and say:

It's okay if YOU like to play that way.


You greedy capitalist pigdog.  You godless immoral heathen, you damn dirty cheater.

Oh.. wait, you didn't actually say that. Implied again.  Oops, my bad.

@Spike:

Do you want to find a specific post to talk about, where I said one of these awful things that you're accusing me of?

Looking back over my posting history there are A LOT of posts where a couple of specific posters make some fairly innacurate guesses of "what I meant" based on what I actually said, and then lots of posts where I'm explaining it to make sure people understand what I'm trying to say.

Sure, Stu. Try your posts 330 and 339 in this very thread.  Words like lying and honesty feature pretty heavily in your posts there.

I'd quote them chapter and verse, but my forum fu is weak, and I am a lazy git.

These two?

#330

QuoteMy 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.

Now, if they DO know you're doing it, then it's cool -- in the same way that Pro Wrestling is cool. And what I really like about that comparison, is that "players" in Pro Wrestling do different things than competitive wrestlers. Instead of worrying about trying to "win" at the actual match, they put their efforts into showmanship and creating an entertaining story. So if your players know you're just faking it, they can focus their roleplaying and adding interesting bits to the plot you (as GM) are controlling. Basically, you've changed what the game is about -- which is ok, because the other players understand that, and are into it.

#339

QuoteI'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.

I guess it might have sounded less harsh if I had qualified the strong language by saying things like:

"only if the other player's don't know you're doing it"
"if they DO know you're doing it, then it's cool"
"I'm not talking about improvisation where it's normally expected in an RPG"

Maybe it's my writing style.  I don't know.  It's something to think about I guess (seriously).

Anyway... can we move on now?

Quote from: StuartAnyway... can we move on now?

Please!

Quote from: jrientsStalin always railroaded his players.

Or so I hear.

Heh.  The People's Glorious Module B-1:  The Village of Potemkin

Quote from: TonyLBHeh.  The People's Glorious Module B-1:  The Village of Potemkin

Is that the one where the barg...   err, ship always sinks?

Yes, but don't tell the players that. Be sure to let them make all sorts of choices, but always have the ship sink.

No, no, that's B2: Battlebarge of Potemkin.  B1 is the one that says "If they try to go to a nearby village for aid, their Intourist guide tells them that their visas do not allow for such free travel, but they can rest assured that all the villages are just like this one."

Quote from: StuartI think this was JUST pointed out yesterday as some kind of standard internet debate tactic?  Implying by association that the person you disagree with is a racist / homophobic / a republican / etc?

Yes -- it was right here:  http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=50787&postcount=277

(THis isn't directed at Stuart)

50 CENTS people!

Ding!

First of all, Stuart, your previous post did not clear it up.  In that post, you said

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.

Which, quite honestly, tells me nothing accept that you think 1 out of 100 versus 99 out of 100 would be different. It's a statement with which nobody could disagree.

Quote from: StuartThe 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.

Again – says nothing. With words like "if." and "might," you adequately nullify any statements that could be asserted against.  In other words, it's another statement that would be hard to contradict.

Both of them clarify nothing.  Particularly when you then, in a later post, say something like this:

Quote from: StuartFor the record: I think that people using illusionist, railroading, or dice fudging in RPGs are not nasty, wicked, false, evil, scum and villany.

Oh Stuart – you were so close.  If you'd only stopped there, perhaps I could move on. But no, you go and ruin it with:

Quote from: StuartI do think that those techniques are sub-optimal, and that they may result in a decreased level of enjoyment for a significant number of gamers -- and in all probability an even larger number of current non-gamers (because they don't play games like that).

Now you did try to qualify this with "may," and "in all probability."  But how should I take those qualifiers with the asserted sub-optimal?

Make it clear to me. If I practice any fudging, railroading, or illusionism – even in the most minor of situations, for whatever reason – am I now in Story Game land. Have I put Story above anything else? Do I have to stop the game and let the players know that I'm doing so to avoid anyone feeling cheated?

Because this is the way it's coming across. Since I'm having trouble with this, and everyone else seems to want to move on, this will be my last attempt.

Oh for christ's sake... :rolleyes:

Quote from: James J SkachMake it clear to me. If I practice any fudging, railroading, or illusionism – even in the most minor of situations, for whatever reason – am I now in Story Game land.

You can call your game whatever you like. Or ask the Pundit's opinion.  I don't care.  The most clear answer to your question I can give you is NO.  I hope that's clear enough.

Quote from: James J SkachSince I'm having trouble with this, and everyone else seems to want to move on, this will be my last attempt.

Please.