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: 8976178" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>LOL. </p><p></p><p>I said: "I've seen this idea coming from everything from old school CoC, to Indy gaming, to OSR." But you feel the need to ask questions that could be answered from the text if you cared to have them answered.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I didn't say I think it is necessarily wrong to be explicit about the process of play. I said that there was a trade off between clearly describing the game you intended the audience of your rules to play, and giving freedom to the players to develop procedures that suited different sorts of situation. But again, you are asking questions that have their own answers within the text. I wrote:</p><p></p><p>"...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>I could elaborate on that, but the fact you are pointedly ignoring what I actually wrote is not anything new. Maybe cool off and listen to what I actually wrote rather than trying to play gotcha with me.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I defined (+) in the thread as not intended to limit discussion on the merits of illusionism, only to short cut a thread crapping by people who refused to admit that illusionism exists. The original post makes it clear that if you want to develop an argument about how great Illusionism is, I won't feel hurt about. However, to know that you'd actually have to read what I wrote.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I have neither IMO redefined Illusionism, nor defined it as a feature exclusive to "games that I don't like". To the extent that you actually think I have redefined Illusionism and want to quibble with my definition feel free, but that doesn't seem to be your intention here. I have defined "Illusionism" as a feature of all RPGs, but you are here willfully misinterpreting me and lying about what I have said. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Feel free to disagree with my premise, but you aren't actually doing that. You are just stalking me and thread crapping.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I've got a whole thread full of comments, but quite clearly you aren't interested in my statements. But don't worry, if I get the time I'll do a textual analysis of a popular game system free from the well poisoning you are trying to do here. But that will be a topic for another thread.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 8976178, member: 4937"] LOL. I said: "I've seen this idea coming from everything from old school CoC, to Indy gaming, to OSR." But you feel the need to ask questions that could be answered from the text if you cared to have them answered. I didn't say I think it is necessarily wrong to be explicit about the process of play. I said that there was a trade off between clearly describing the game you intended the audience of your rules to play, and giving freedom to the players to develop procedures that suited different sorts of situation. But again, you are asking questions that have their own answers within the text. I wrote: "...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." I could elaborate on that, but the fact you are pointedly ignoring what I actually wrote is not anything new. Maybe cool off and listen to what I actually wrote rather than trying to play gotcha with me. I defined (+) in the thread as not intended to limit discussion on the merits of illusionism, only to short cut a thread crapping by people who refused to admit that illusionism exists. The original post makes it clear that if you want to develop an argument about how great Illusionism is, I won't feel hurt about. However, to know that you'd actually have to read what I wrote. I have neither IMO redefined Illusionism, nor defined it as a feature exclusive to "games that I don't like". To the extent that you actually think I have redefined Illusionism and want to quibble with my definition feel free, but that doesn't seem to be your intention here. I have defined "Illusionism" as a feature of all RPGs, but you are here willfully misinterpreting me and lying about what I have said. Feel free to disagree with my premise, but you aren't actually doing that. You are just stalking me and thread crapping. I've got a whole thread full of comments, but quite clearly you aren't interested in my statements. But don't worry, if I get the time I'll do a textual analysis of a popular game system free from the well poisoning you are trying to do here. But that will be a topic for another thread. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
On "Illusionism" (+)
Top