Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
On "Illusionism" (+)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 8975984" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>Since most of us don't get paid, I tend to not look at things in terms of professional ethics but I admit that they generally apply. I do look at being a GM very much as an artistic endeavor that combines a lot of different skills and which people who undertake it should be undertaking with the idea of getting good at it the same way a hobbyist of almost any other sort - basketball player, carpenter, guitar player, video gamer - is striving to improve their craft for the pleasure of doing that. </p><p></p><p>In terms of ethics, my axiom is "Be the GM that you would want to have if you were a player", or if you like, "Be the GM your players would want to have."</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The last 15 years or so we've seen - following recognition that the processes of play are at least as important as the rules and that the GM role is therefore at least as important as the rules - attempts to formally encode the processes of play with the idea that if you could somehow encode the GM's role into the rules sufficiently, you couldn't actually have a bad game that followed the rules and that all bad play would in some sense result from breaking the rules or failing to understand the rules.</p><p></p><p>This is about as naive in my opinion as the fetishization of realism we saw in the 80's through the early 90's where so many designers acted like all table problems were the result of rules that weren't realistic enough, and that if you just had realistic enough rules then the game would just work. For one thing, rigidly encoding the processes of play to produce that one game means that the game probably isn't going to have the flexibility it needs for long form stories unless the GM is consciously or unconsciously ignoring processes of play.</p><p></p><p>Nonetheless, this fad hasn't quite run its course yet so we are still seeing people argue as if stated intentions of the rules are encoded into the rules then by golly that's what the game does, unlike those archaic other games that don't code their stated intentions into the rules and so don't do that.</p><p></p><p>But what I've increasingly found uncomfortable and is what prompted this discussion is that as the designers start to realize that the encoding the processes of play is neither as straightforward as claimed nor fixing as much is as claimed, the designers are increasingly turning to patching everything with illusionism. I've seen this idea coming from everything from old school CoC, to Indy gaming, to OSR. Everywhere I go these days everyone is preaching Illusionism as the solution to every question about how to make a game work. It is to fiction what "Rulings over Rules" or "No rule is a bad rule because the GM can just change them" is to mechanics. System not working? Just apply more Illusionism! Players aren't having fun? Just apply more Illusionism! Adventure isn't written badly? Apply more illusionism. Patch everything on the fly. And while on one level this does fit into my idea of being a skillful GM in that a skillful GM ought to not be hidebound and should have a big toolbox, I'm really uncomfortable with offering up loads of Illusionism and Fudging as the solution to every problem or as an excuse for poorly written content. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If you read my essay on railroading, I don't actually say that the techniques are bad techniques. I say rather that they have to be employed sparingly or artfully, with do consideration of the fact that you are sacrificing player agency and you better have a really good reason to do that and further that if you do it too much, then you go from being someone who is using railroading techniques to someone who is running a railroad. </p><p></p><p>This is I hope a bit more of a quantitative and artistic approach to the topic than the usually binary good/bad qualitative discussion you normally see.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 8975984, member: 4937"] Since most of us don't get paid, I tend to not look at things in terms of professional ethics but I admit that they generally apply. I do look at being a GM very much as an artistic endeavor that combines a lot of different skills and which people who undertake it should be undertaking with the idea of getting good at it the same way a hobbyist of almost any other sort - basketball player, carpenter, guitar player, video gamer - is striving to improve their craft for the pleasure of doing that. In terms of ethics, my axiom is "Be the GM that you would want to have if you were a player", or if you like, "Be the GM your players would want to have." The last 15 years or so we've seen - following recognition that the processes of play are at least as important as the rules and that the GM role is therefore at least as important as the rules - attempts to formally encode the processes of play with the idea that if you could somehow encode the GM's role into the rules sufficiently, you couldn't actually have a bad game that followed the rules and that all bad play would in some sense result from breaking the rules or failing to understand the rules. This is about as naive in my opinion as the fetishization of realism we saw in the 80's through the early 90's where so many designers acted like all table problems were the result of rules that weren't realistic enough, and that if you just had realistic enough rules then the game would just work. For one thing, rigidly encoding the processes of play to produce that one game means that the game probably isn't going to have the flexibility it needs for long form stories unless the GM is consciously or unconsciously ignoring processes of play. Nonetheless, this fad hasn't quite run its course yet so we are still seeing people argue as if stated intentions of the rules are encoded into the rules then by golly that's what the game does, unlike those archaic other games that don't code their stated intentions into the rules and so don't do that. But what I've increasingly found uncomfortable and is what prompted this discussion is that as the designers start to realize that the encoding the processes of play is neither as straightforward as claimed nor fixing as much is as claimed, the designers are increasingly turning to patching everything with illusionism. I've seen this idea coming from everything from old school CoC, to Indy gaming, to OSR. Everywhere I go these days everyone is preaching Illusionism as the solution to every question about how to make a game work. It is to fiction what "Rulings over Rules" or "No rule is a bad rule because the GM can just change them" is to mechanics. System not working? Just apply more Illusionism! Players aren't having fun? Just apply more Illusionism! Adventure isn't written badly? Apply more illusionism. Patch everything on the fly. And while on one level this does fit into my idea of being a skillful GM in that a skillful GM ought to not be hidebound and should have a big toolbox, I'm really uncomfortable with offering up loads of Illusionism and Fudging as the solution to every problem or as an excuse for poorly written content. If you read my essay on railroading, I don't actually say that the techniques are bad techniques. I say rather that they have to be employed sparingly or artfully, with do consideration of the fact that you are sacrificing player agency and you better have a really good reason to do that and further that if you do it too much, then you go from being someone who is using railroading techniques to someone who is running a railroad. This is I hope a bit more of a quantitative and artistic approach to the topic than the usually binary good/bad qualitative discussion you normally see. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
On "Illusionism" (+)
Top