Tony Vargas
Legend
Not in /exactly/ the same way, but the analogy is close. In both cases, you know that you're not seeing everything that's going on to create the experience. In the case of the DM, the screen is right there. In the case of the magician, you don't have access to the stage, and are viewing everything from angles he's chosen.It's not the same thing. A player isn't aware of illusionism (otherwise it would be "participationism" or whatever) in the same way I'm aware I signed up for being tricked by a magician.
(I got the impression 'participationalism' is more like "sure, I'll watch the magic act, but we need to know how all the tricks work.")
I don't actually disagree. Most players seeing you roll behind the screen should realize you may or may not be rolling to see what number comes up on the die - or you'd be rolling it in the open. But actually shining them on would be analogous to the magician who tries to convince you he has real magical powers.Even the DMG suggests not letting players know you fudge. I think that's bad advice because it's encouraging acting in an untruthful manner.
His comments didn't make huge amounts of sense taken at face value, I admit, yet they rang true for many of us who'd had that sort of experience back in the day.While that may be true in some cases, we can't know that was exactly the case for Mearls. If I remember his comments correctly.
A significant Gygaxism of the classic game was that the DM should know the rules /better/ than his players, and that he should maintain that gap, even as the players gained 'skill.' Today, that'd probably be considered part of illusionism.
Levels are part of the mechanics, not using some of them is the same as opting out of any other mechanic - if it makes the game better for your purposes, that's a 'fix.' A pretty easy one, in this case.I wouldn't say skipping apprentice levels is fixing the system in the same way that house ruling mechanics is fixing the system.
It'd reduce the frequency of such delivered by the system, so less fudging after the fact - and between the two, that'd be 'solved,' as the problem wouldn't have occurred.I would also say it doesn't solve the problem of "inglorious" or "ridiculous" deaths. It just mitigates it.
I agree it doesn't help if your strategy is to avoid them by avoiding all chance of death, up-front...
...though, in a way, it's not that different, it's still dealing with the issue mainly by avoiding it.
::shrug::
Illusionism isn't based on being untruthful, just on not providing complete information - not 'showing them the strings.'As for smart play, unlike "illusionism," it isn't based on being untruthful about how you're going about things.
I don't disagree, but you will exclude a whole range of play opportunities (stories, character concepts, &c) in choosing not to tie PCs into the story, just as you loose a swath of 'em for doing so.I think concerns about continuity typically arise from basing the plot or storyline on the PCs, especially on their backstories. As characters drop out, holes in the story start to appear as things go unresolved.... I just think there are ways to structure the game to avoid that.
Neither's an innately bad choice, in itself, they just each present different challenges & opportunities.