Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[Campbell]

Some quick clarifications.

Make your move, but misdirect is not really about misleading the players. They know it is your turn to speak either because things have grinded to a halt, interrogating the fiction, or they did something that requires a response from the fiction. You are defining something in the fiction because there is a game to be played. You know it. They know it. We all know it. We just do not speak to it because it endangers the fantasy that the world is real. We are still making Apocalypse World seem real, but we are also making the players' characters' lives not boring - making sure there is interesting fiction to play in. The vast majority of the time this will not be an issue if they have made vibrant characters who they play with integrity. Think about why there are dungeons to be explored or adventures to be had in Dungeons and Dragons and why we do not speak to this real world truth. It does not have to be directly tied to their characters. We just want interesting fiction to play through.

I would not take look through the crosshairs too literally. It's more about ensuring that the fiction is dynamic and there is no meaningful status quo. It's about making sure that things are always changing in some way rather than staying static. We want success to be as consequential as failure. We want NPCs to do things to each other, rather than just the PCs. We want existing relationships to shift and become upended. Looking through the crosshairs could be about the waitress of their favorite watering hole changing jobs as much as a local warlord being assassinated. It could be about their allies calling in favors because they are under threat. It could be about that dungeon they have avoided being cleared out by another adventuring company. It could be about their wife leaving them for someone who can be there for their kids rather than always going off adventuring. Sometimes the crosshairs are literal. Often, they are not.

Respond With F---ery And Intermittent Rewards is about characters getting what they earn, but not usually what they hope for. We do this to keep the fiction interesting and also because the fiction is what it is. Social influence only goes so far. It does not change what motivates the character most of the time. Violence tends to beget more violence. Alliances are mutual relationships that must be nurtured. The game is more forceful about this than I would like, but Apocalypse World is about a particular hard-edged sort of fiction in a desperate world. The more the fiction is about a world where hope and perseverance wins the day the less applicable this principle should be.

 

[Lanefan]

You didn't quote the second of the above sentences, but I've requoted it because the two go together.

As a player, I can tell if the GM is following his/her notes and/or his/her conception of what makes for a good story, or is following the hooks provided by the players via the build and play of their PCs.

Most obviously, I can tell if the ingame situation is forcing me to make choices on the basis of said hooks.

In which case this tells me one or more of several things:

1. You're looking too hard at it and-or maybe taking it too seriously, rather than just relaxing and enjoying the game for what it is
2. You're expecting the game to be about how the world interacts with the PCs (sun revolves around the earth) rather than how the PCs interact with the world (earth revolves around the sun)
3. The DM is doing it wrong - were it being done well the players' hooks etc. would be seamlessly incorporated into her story such that you couldn't tell how they were interwoven

Well, if a character has a Belief "Now that I've seen my brother [who is possessed by a Balrog], I pity him" then the player of that character can tell whether or not a given episode of play relates in some fashion to the character's pity for his brother.

Obviously. By the same token, however, not every episode will relate to this (and nor should it); some episodes will relate to other characters' stuff and some will not relate to any.

If my character has the Instinct "When camping, always keep the campfire burning" I can tell whether or not a given episode of play contains a campfire.

This is one where, instead of having it come up every single night the party camps (which would very quickly get tedious - most adventuring parties do a lot of camping!) I'd just assume that when camping with this PC in the party the campfire would be constantly kept alight unless there's something indicating otherwise e.g. a very heavy rainfall or an opponent who intentionally tries to douse the fire to plunge the camp into darkness.

In a system without that sort of explicit signalling via elements of PC build, if a PC is a Marshall of Letherna sworn to upholding and advancing the interests of the Raven Queen, the player of that PC can tell if those interests are at play in some fashion in a given episode of play.

At play in a given episode, yes. Every episode? No.

That's why when, at some stage upthread, someone said it's just as easy to railroad in a player-driven game as in a GM-driven one I disagreed. You can't keep it secret from the players whether or not the ingame situation, being resolved at the table, speaks to their concerns and goals for their PCs, because that is evident in the moment of play.

Not necessarily. Using your Marshall of Letherna example, it'd be pretty easy to make sure that what had to be done in order to uphold the Raven Queen's interests just happen to dovetail with the series of adventures I have in mind.

A player can be pro-active - eg establishing thematic concerns for his/her PC - but his/her PC be reactive. Eg the player build his/her PC as a fanatical devotee of the Raven Queen; the GM frames the PC into an assault by Orcus cultists.

If the PC is passive about her fanatacism and waits for the DM to frame something, sure...but if the DM instead waits to see what this fanatic decides to go out and do on her own initiative and then reacts to that, the tables are turned.

The maruading wolves seem like nothing more than colour. Likewise the "something big".

A wandering small pack of wolves is just as much a part of the "action" as a fight with Orcus cultists. The only difference is that none of the PCs have any particular concerns etc. about wolves built into their backstories or goals; they just don't want to get eaten. The "something big" could have been part of the action as well except the PCs chose to avoid it...which in itself is an action, only (as it turns out) less dangerous.

And although the PCs are heading from A to B, it doesn't matter when they arrive at B. And so a player makes up something new - drums sounding through the woods - to give his/her PC something to do.

Or to change the direction of the evolving story, or to give the party a reason to get to B sooner, or just to throw another log on the fire.

What game do you have in mind?

Any of these player-driven games you keep talking about.

Upthread [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] posted a passage from John Harper which, to me, seemed to be reiterating the Czege Principle, or something in that neighbourhood: that it's not satisfying, in a RPG, to be the one who both frames a challenge and chooses how to answer it.

I think the drum example counts as such a thing. Why is the player framing the challenge that his/her PC is called upon to answer - in effect, narrating his/her own opposition?

Not at all. The player is lobbing a pebble in the pond by narrating that there's something out there (which could include a great wide variety of things, lots of cultures/creatures use drums); the rest of the party then have to decide what if anything to do about it, and the DM has to narrate what's out there if the party decide to investigate.

I've played in RPGs where the GM obviously has some sense of what is going on in the fiction, and wants the players to do something, but won't just spit it out and be overt about it, and so much of the play time is spent by the players trying to find out what the "plot" is, so that things can move forward.

"Wants the players to do something" - by this do you mean "wants the players to do a specific thing as opposed to some other thing they're doing now" (which is bad as it means she can't hit the curveball they've thrown) or "wants the players to do something as opposed to the nothing they're doing now" (which is good in that she wants them to get on with it)?

Another thing that I've found can lead to a lack of clear direction is when the players are all revved up about X, and the GM - for whatever reason - is not interested in X, and through a combination of blocking and attempts at "hooking" tries to steer play away from X and towards something else.

There's another thread going on right now in which I just brought up this exact thing. The thread's about what's a DM to do if the players reject the plot; my point was that it can also happen in reverse, where the players get gung-ho about something the DM just isn't interested in (this has happened to me in the past). The DM has very limited options:

1. Treat it like a band-aid: grit your teeth, get on with it, and get it over with as quickly as possible and then hope they go on (either with or without some nudging) to something more interesting
2. Do as you mention above and try to force a change toward something more interesting
3. Shut the game down.

I think this sort of issue is mostly down to GMs, not players.

It's the DM's game. If the DM isn't interested in what's happening in it she's not going to be all that keen on running it, and if she stops running it it's game over: no game can survive the loss of its DM. So, assuming the players want the game to keep going it's in their better interests to ensure the DM is one or more of engaged, interested, amused, entertained, or curious about what happens next.

Lan-"I solve this by making sure I have entertaining players, and then I do my best to entertain them in return"-efan

 

[pemerton]

What game do you have in mind?

Any of these player-driven games you keep talking about.

But neither PbtA nor Burning Wheel permits the player to introduce drums in the way you describe.

This is why I'm curious as to what game you're talking about.

You're expecting the game to be about how the world interacts with the PCs

<snip>

not every episode will relate to this (and nor should it); some episodes will relate to other characters' stuff and some will not relate to any.

As per the passage from the BW rules that I quoted upthread, it's the GM's job to weave everything together. Every moment of play should (and, hopefully, will) relate to something that is relevant to one or more of the PCs concerns/interests, as expressed by the players' builds and play.

That's what I mean by a "player-driven" game.

 

[Nagol]

Part of what I struggled with (and perhaps it's just because it never became second nature) is the design of the game itself.

The move mechanic still feels very, very foreign to me. Why do I have to have a "move" to blow a horn? Why isn't it just blowing a horn?

Moves on the GM's part aren't like chess moves -- singular actions corresponding to well-defined rules. Moves are simply the GM injecting action into the situations. I think this is one of the dirty secrets of the game. It's not that you shouldn't name your moves because that would bring the players out of the situation: you shouldn't name your moves because trying to restrict yourself to the categorisation is too limiting.

Does running mean you have to choose between shows signs of an advancing threat, put someone on the spot, or change the environment, or can all three occur? Why can't they just turn and run, and the players each tell me how they react?

Multiple might occur, but some may be mutually exclusive or dependent on not-success on the player's part. For example, the guard turns to run, but the GM decides to put player A on the spot and says he is in position to take a shot to stop him (perhaps because that is where the player placed the character specifically, perhaps because the character hasn't had a chance to do much recently, perhaps because any other reason the GM might decide to make that call). If the player succeeds (either by rolling 10+ or dropping the guard) then the guard doesn't manage to get out the door and change the situation. Any other result and the GM will cue advancing threat, change of environment, or both.

Overall, it just felt to "gamey" to me, like the focus was on following the rules, rather than just following the characters. One of the main reasons I've yet to find a video game, as immersive as they are, provide anything remotely like the experience of playing D&D since literally almost anything can happen.

I understand the concepts behind the system (at least some of them) and that the focus is on keeping the action flowing. Part of it is because I don't consider a primary purpose of being a DM as keeping the action flowing. Yes, I want to ensure that things don't get stuck, but really I see it as the PCs responsibility to keep things flowing. I'm not interested in making a soft move to move the characters along, because I think things are too slow, unless they are too slow because of a mistake I've made.

They are the ones making the decisions. So I let them do so without my interference.

It depends on the genre and experience at the table. It provides an experience more akin to some types of movie (James Bond) or book (Harry Dresden) where the protagonists are rarely given a moment's peace once a situation starts. Other games types allow more introspection and player-controlled tempo.

Your example of the Trojan Horse is a good one in terms of showing that even games that are supposed to prevent DM overreach, it's going to be possible in just about any system you can design.

The GM has a lot of power to wield. There are other types of overreach in DW but they tend to boil down to the same soft move or hard move choice:
For example, "One day, Alice *Pow* to the moon" The player gets a partial success and is given a choice: take a loss now (hp, ammo whatever -- a hard move) OR increase the danger (soft move designed to make a later hard move more punishing). The player chooses danger (or perhaps the GM didn't even offer the choice -- he simply picked the soft move himself). The danger level visibly increases (his sword begins to burn with a sickly green glow) , but miraculously the players manage to stop the bad guy before anyone is struck by that extra danger. Every. Stinking. Time. The GM is playing the soft move option as a safety valve; he offers the choice when he is pretty certain the players will negate the extra danger before it will come into play and thus prevent the loss the hard move would inflict.

 

[pemerton]

If my character has the Instinct "When camping, always keep the campfire burning" I can tell whether or not a given episode of play contains a campfire.

This is one where, instead of having it come up every single night the party camps (which would very quickly get tedious - most adventuring parties do a lot of camping!) I'd just assume that when camping with this PC in the party the campfire would be constantly kept alight unless there's something indicating otherwise e.g. a very heavy rainfall or an opponent who intentionally tries to douse the fire to plunge the camp into darkness.

This is one of those cases where one has to be careful about generalising. As I think I posted upthread, camping has featured very little in my 4e game, not at all in my BW game, and was never that big an element in my RM games.

Whereas, with this Instinct for my PC, I would expect the GM to frame a scene where the presence (or absence) of a campfire matters - analogously to how, in the first session of my BW campaign, I established a tower - ie a place with heights - as the home of an adversarial NPC because one of the PCs had the Instinct "When falling, cast Falconskin".

A wandering small pack of wolves is just as much a part of the "action" as a fight with Orcus cultists. The only difference is that none of the PCs have any particular concerns etc. about wolves built into their backstories or goals; they just don't want to get eaten.

But that's enough to demonstrate that it doesn't count as "going where the action is" in the sense that I (following Eero Tuovinen) am using that phrase. It's just filler.

Using your Marshall of Letherna example, it'd be pretty easy to make sure that what had to be done in order to uphold the Raven Queen's interests just happen to dovetail with the series of adventures I have in mind.

Maybe. Depending on the adventures.

Now imagine that, as the campaign unfolds, the player's conception of what fidelity to, and defence of, the Raven Queen entails becomes more-and-more richly developed. And you keep adapting your ideas to encompass that conception. Who is driving the campaign?

 

[hawkeyefan]

But even in real life, aren't people's motivations mutable? Isn't it possible under whatever circumstances that they'll change their mind, or learn something, or decide that the risk isn't worth the reward, or whatever?

Regardless, pre-determining everything that can possibly happen (including random ones) is an awful lot to put on the DMs shoulders.

Absolutely. I agree that pre-determining everything is a lot of effort. And don't get me wrong....I am fine with leaving an NPC's actual motivations unknown, and only establishing them once it makes sense to do so, and in a way that makes sense for the story. I am just aware that doing this is along the lines of illusionism.

Because you are right....motivations change in the real world. People are fickle and hypocritical and so on....they change their minds. Changing a motivation from A to B is something different from having no motivation at first and then establishing it as B at some later point.

It's concrete, but unknown.

In the real world, people act based on the information they have. In the RPG, the players act on the information they have. So from the point of view of PC habitation, there's no issue.

Well, in the real world, people tend to have motivations all along....they don't spring into existence at the convenience of story. Or drama or going where the action is or whatever label you want to put on it.

And I'd also say that the whole "from the point of the PCs, there's no issue" argument is pretty much exactly what people say in defense of illusionism.

From the point of view of RPG play (as I said to [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] not far upthread), the difference is between the players trying to find a way to learn what is in the GM's notes, and the players (like their PCs) hoping to impose their will upon the world. I happen to prefer the second approach.

That's cool, I can't blame you for preferring that. I don't see the two things as being in opposition, but I can understand your choice between the two.

This seems to be assuming a GM-driven game: there is the challenge, which the PCs have to deal with rather than bypass; and there are only certain legitimate ways to deal with that challenge - finding a secret door is not one of them!

But, as I replied to Lanefan, if the game is being run in the style described by Eero Tuovinen's "standard narrativistic model", or the GMing instructions I quoted not far upthread from the BW rulebooks, then that assumption doesn't hold good. The GM's job is to "go where the action is" and to introduce complications that force players to make choices. I can do that whether or not the PCs find a secret door.

It doesn't necessarily have to be about a GM introduced challenge. I find the idea of the players introducing solutions to the story entirely on their own to be troublesome. Not to say that it can't be done effectively and fairly...I'm sure it can. But I think it can also be abused. Or lead to some less interesting or dramatic resolutions to the problems the PCs find themselves in.

 

[Manbearcat]

@Manbearcat, were you thinking of GM Empowerment vs Responsibility in terms of Agency with respect to a game like 5e (very high Empowerment, tempered by equally great Responsibility) vs a game like pemerton presents BW to be* (ie player-driven with lesser or shared-with-players Empowerment, but less/shared Responsibility for the success of the game, as well)? As opposed to games like 3.5 (neither strictly player- nor DM-driven, per se, and with Empowerment one both sides of the screen coming through profound rewards for System Mastery, and, particularly on the player side, in consequence of a social contract typically emphasizing adherence to RAW)?

I didn't really say that, though. I said I felt my agency went up with little or no increase in responsibility. And I mean this in the "net" sense that [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] originally mentioned.


So, even if 5E increases my responsibility by empowering me as a DM, then such an increase is offset by the removal of other areas of DM responsibility that I found tedious and of little value.

I can't speak for @Manbearcat (obviously) but I find the premise of the question a bit strange.

The GM has a lot of responsibility for the success of a game of BW.

<snip>

I wouldn't think of it as having very much in common with either playing or GMing 3E/PF, except in some very surface level ways. There is not a whole lot of PC-build rules and lists of spells to remember and adjudicate.

Snipped @pemerton 's breakdown of BW GM responsibilities.

So GM cognitive workload and mental overhead comes down to two primary evaluations IME:

1) Desirous vs Tedious

Do I enjoy the game's expectant or necessary conversation/pacing/mood-enhancing techniques, book-keeping (mental and physical), scribing, examination-with-potential-for-required-hacking of the mechanics, interfacing with the resolution mechanics to produce dynamism/interesting and meaningful player choice?

2) Utility vs Cost

How much efficient, coherent (with respect to the game's agenda) function does this responsibility provide and does it negatively impact my attention elsewhere? Further, does it (in the course of multiple applications over multiple sessions) mentally tax to the point that my interest or sharpness becomes fatigued by the weight of it?

A game like Burning Wheel or Torchbearer (and honestly, I'll say Blades in the Dark at this point @Campbell ) has considerable, interfacing system components that do a lot of work to create the overall play experience. The GM must not just understand the "how" these mechanical components work (by themselves but, more importantly, together), but they must intimately understand the "why." This might be a heavy cognitive burden.

However...the elegance, coherency, predictability, and intuitiveness of the system's machinery (components by themselves, with respect to each other, and with respect to the games' agenda in full) is an enormous mitigating factor here. Even though the sum total is significant, the mesh of it makes it less so because the "how" and the "why" becomes extremely easy to understand and instinctual in relatively short order. These games are engineered to do precisely what they say and, while there is a lot going on under the hood (and in the GM's brain), there is no "beating it into shape" required before, during, or after play to reliably produce the play experience. Just understanding, player advocacy for their PCs, and principled application of deft GMing.

(Since you brought it up) Now if we juxtapose with 3.x, you get nearly the inverse Utility:Cost relationship as you do in the games above. The game says it wants to be a "kick in the door" and "back to the dungeon" experience. So action-packed, fast-paced B/X like? Uh no. The game is fundamentally engineered to make it nearly impossible for a dungeon to be an impediment. It doesn't provide the machinery to make B/X dungeoncrawling work. The pacing of the game is entirely centered around (i) the unbelievably prolific, scaling, and powerful spells and the (ii) the PCs prolific means to facilitate their recovery and loadout so they can be deployed to circumvent/obviate obstacles. This relationship is entirely adversarial to any sort of action-packed and fast-paced initiative that the game designers may have made the initial target. It (predictably and reliably) produces the exact opposite of "kick in the door" and "back to the dungeon."

Complicating matters is an overwhelming amount of book-keeping (referencing an absurd amount of information, adjusting numbers for buffs and then readjusting for Dispel), cognitive maintenance of ruleset components and interactions, and the "beating into shape" (grotesque intra-party imbalance and grotesque outcome unpredictability - for the GM 0 which often requires Illusionism to head-off anticlimax and niche protection/PC relevance) before, during, and after to hopefully reproduce the NOT "kick in the door" and NOT "back to the dungeon" play agenda that you've pushed play towards (which is typically some form of Gritty Paladins and Princesses).

So, on the spectra of Desirous <<<<<>>>>> Tedious and Utility <<<<<>>>>>Cost, I put 3.x deeply on the right of both while something from the Burning Wheel family (like Mouse Guard), the PBtA family (like Dungeon World), or the Cortex+ family (like Heroic Fantasy) registers well to the left of center on both.

 

[Manbearcat]

Additionally, many D&D DMs ascribe to techniques whereby they adjust danger level off-the-cuff, typically covertly (fudging or illusionism). Dungeon World restricts those tools, but despite @Manbearcat's assertion, has similar ways to be deviate from a "honest" play experience if the GM wishes.

I just want to make clear what I assert.

Illusionism can be facilitated or hindered by (a) explicit or implicit play agenda, (b) GM latitude or constraint, (c) the nature of play conversation/procedures/resolution mechanics (how transparent they are and the actual manifestation of the fortune resolution at the table), and (d) cultural orthodoxy.

When I talk about the PBtA games and Illusionism, I'm referring to how they interface with (a), (b), (c), and (d) above and how, if there is a continuum of Facilitate <<<<<>>>>> Hinder, they are on the extreme right because of it. But no TTRPG can utterly squashed the prospects of Illusionism out of existence. That is because TTRPG are a collection of directives and people. People can do all sorts of things (including the overturning/manipulation of stringent, clear, coherent, and highly functional directives) to further their own ends.

 

[Manbearcat]

Originally Posted by Imaro
Ok so looking at this and referencing the DW SRD... the player (because remember I was speaking to GM/DM creativity) decides what the out come will be from their move either less damage, spent ammo or danger.

Now let's first look at the example where the player picks less damage... With this choice I see no area where the GM gets to express any type of creativity.

<snip>

the DM is constrained by the fact that he doesn't get to actively pick which of the consequences (even within the parameters of the 3 set forth for the specific roll in the game) affect the player.

<snip>

The player chooses danger, well the GM does get to flex his creative muscles in that he gets to decide the type of danger and the fiction surrounding it but again he is constrained.

Perhaps I've missed the point, but this seems an odd place to argue about GM creativity. In D&D, if the player makes a roll to hit, all the GM gets to do is either leave the target's hp unchanged (on a miss) or reduce the hp tally (on a hit). (Having read on a bit, I see that [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION] has made much the same point.)

And if we think about non-attack moves declared by a player, like climbing - well, the GM gets to declare "You go up", "You stay put" or "You fall". When [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] once suggested that, using DW-type principles, the GM might instead narrate an essential item falling into the crevasse, I remember this provoking a degree of controversy.

So what GM creativity are you envisaging being opened up by player action declarations that is missing from DW?

It seems like the conversation with [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION] and this post and another post by [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] (regarding how the GM is constained in affecting the fiction in classic D&D turn-based combat due action economy and the prescriptive, binary nature of most actions) may have sorted this out. But if it hasn't, here is another effort.

In one (small with respect to scale and scope) Dungeon World combat the result of PC moves yielded the following:

Outright success * 2
Success with danger * 2
Success with a prescribed worst outcome * 1
Success with a worse outcome, hard bargain, or ugly choice * 3
Hard failure * 1

These are just the reactive moves I have to make. This doesn't even take into account my initial framing (collection of soft moves in establishing the situation) and proactive soft moves I would need to make in the course of play to give effect to my NPCs/obstacles and follow the fiction.

Just those alone and you have 5 reactive moves that don't just allow, but require, a significant amount of creativity on the GM's part to (a) follow the fiction, (b) fill the character's lives with adventure, (c) think dangerous, and (d) create interesting decision-points/trees for the players. These aren't in the least bit prescriptive or binary. Each one of these probably entails a menu of 6-12 options (depending on how prolific/creative the GM is coupled with the NPC/Obstacle moves/Instincts, coupled with how constraining the present fictional positioning is) that the GM must collate and decide upon a winner. Then you have the singular Hard failure where the options are either opened up or further constrained depending on the situation.

Contrast with the binary, prescriptive nature of classic D&D combat saving throws and the overwhelming majority of action declarations and their attendant resolution? There is no comparison. The creative burden and the creative (but principally constrained) latitude for a Dungeon World GM is overwhelmingly more significant.

If anything, the pressure and demands of this improvisational cognitive burden (creating dynamic, principled fiction with interesting/dynamic decision-points while simultaneously coherently addressing the premise the players' have flagged as important/relevant to their PCs) is the break-point for many classic D&D GMs who try their hand at Dungeon World and other PBtA games (see my post a few above this).

I've known many that just flat can't do it. I've known others that can do it in short bursts but anything more is exhausting.

 

[Manbearcat]

Absolutely. I agree that pre-determining everything is a lot of effort. And don't get me wrong....I am fine with leaving an NPC's actual motivations unknown, and only establishing them once it makes sense to do so, and in a way that makes sense for the story. I am just aware that doing this is along the lines of illusionism.

One more quick post because I'm seeing a lot of concepts run together and Illusionism is getting conflated/diluted with other stuff because of it.

Keeping fiction mutable (be it backstory, an NPC's nature, or geographical "tightness/resolution") isn't Illusionism. It can be used as a means to facilitate Illusionism, but it isn't by itself Illusionism. It can also be used as a means to expedite only having on-screen "the action" (thematic stuff that the PCs care about). That is the orthodox utility, and therefore reason for deployment, of that GMing technique.

The "illusion of fixedness/persistence/lack of mutability" is not Illusionism. See below:

Force: A technique deployed whereby control over a characters' thematically/strategically/tactically-significant decisions (or the outcomes of those decisions) is overtly wrested from the character's player and/or by way of subordinating the system's orthodox procedures.

All you have to do to turn Force into Illusionism is place a "c" in front of "overtly", thus turning it into "covertly."

The reason why Illusionism is oftentimes considered taboo is because it violates the implicit or explicit social contract that the players have signed up for (and/or the play priorities that the game champions). If it does not violate social contract, then its perfectly fine (or necessary/expected).