Oh yes, what about the stage magician though ? Isn't he lying, deceiving you, for your greater pleasure ?
Not the person you replied to, but I share many of their opinions on this matter. A magician that
tells you they're performing a "trick" is not lying. They are, almost surely, manipulating the economy of attention and employing skillful distraction or obfuscation in order to entertain. But those things are not, in and of themselves,
deceptions. It would be deceptive for the magician to assert, "No, I truly, physically
did saw that man in half, and have just now reassembled him."
And that's what's happening with the pro-illusionism DM. They are not merely providing entertaining obfuscation or distraction. They are explicitly communicating falsehoods,
knowing that they are falsehoods.
It is also worth noting, as Prabe said, that there is a HUGE HUGE HUGE gulf between
storytelling and
lying. Fiction is not
lying. Despite his vast efforts at language construction and building a "legendarium," Tolkien very obviously never intended anyone to believe that these things were in any way "real." Fiction is not literally true, but it is not presenting itself as such; instead, it is intended to communicate more abstract truths, e.g. that old Chesterton quote, "The baby has known the dragon intimately ever since he had an imagination. What the fairy tale provides for him is a St. George to kill the dragon." Or, as Gaiman so colorfully misquoted, "Fairy tales are more than true: not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten." (I think Chesterton would approve of this misquotation.)
The fact that it's DM created and led doesn't mean that the PCs are not the people around whom the plot revolves.
While fair, rather a non-sequitur to Prabe's point. A social relation (which is what every gaming group is) built on honesty is, strictly, better than one built on deceit, even if that deceit is well-intentioned. Just about the only place where so-called "lies" are appropriate is in teaching, as it is often necessary to start with a falsely restrictive view of things (like math, science, or history) so children can develop the tools and understanding necessary to grapple with the complete picture. But even there, the goal ever and always remains to pursue honesty; the "lies" will eventually be revealed. (I, personally, do not actually like using "lies to children"--I instead prefer to tell them up front, "This way of doing things is not perfect, but it is a good start. Later, when you've learned more, we'll talk about where this breaks, and how a more complicated thing can do better." Then there is no lie; you are open about the gap between presentation and reality, and specify that that gap will be addressed.)
That discussion was had in the other thread, and I think that the general consensus is that most tables expect a more or less strong DM plot (or plots) to play around. The PCs can (and probably should, but again YCMV) be central in that plot, but denying the GM creation at the core does not describe D&D games in their vast majority.
I'd like to see your statistics for such declarations of "vast majority." Such claims are quite strong, so I assume your data is comprehensive? Alternatively, if (as I suspect) you are just saying this because that's your
perception of it, you may want to lay off such strong claims.
But if you have examples of play along that line, I would be happy to see them...
Well, I don't think my own game would fit Prabe's requirements, but it is definitely a hell of a lot closer--and it definitely, absolutely
could not exist without my players' contributions. I value everything my players contribute to the game world, it is more precious than diamond, because those contributions are the best evidence I will ever have that they
care about playing this game.
You are assuming way too much and in the wrong direction. And you are not listening to what I'm saying. No-one is saying that players should be lied to about the role of their characters in the world and the plot, how could that be conducive of players fun ? Come on.
Isn't that what illusionism requires, though? You present (for example) the choice to turn left or right at a fork in the road--but that choice is completely false. It is presented
as though it were a real choice. Yet the players are denied even the possibility of learning that it is
not a real choice.
That is the fundamental deception of illusionism for me. Unlike the magician, who makes no pretense of realism--we call them "magic
tricks" for God's sake!--the illusionism-focused GM makes a
pretense of agency where there is none. This applies just as well to things like fudging (whether against the party or for it! I hate beneficial fudging no less than detrimental fudging!) and secret retconning as it does to choices presented as real but actually meaningless.
Please read me in the right light, I'm not advocating lying all the time and about core things, I'm just trying to explain that some lying or railroading now and then are not so bad when done with the right intention in mind, i.e. the player's fun.
How could anything be more core to the process of play than, "What you, the player, choose to do
matters"?