Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Illusionism and metagaming share some common ground; a GM changing encounters on the fly falls within that overlap.Please read the thread before commenting. This was not the point in question -- the point in question is not "is this metagaming?" but "is this a classic example of illusionism".
Which raises the question of when there is no specific table contract, what's the default. I'd have simply assumed the default to be that the GM runs the game as a neutral and impartial arbiter, with anyhting different requiring discussion and buy-in ahead of time.Please read the thread before commenting. I specifically stated that was not the case. As an aside, it can only be bad faith if there is a table contract that the GM will not do that. If there is no such contract, it cannot be in bad faith. And, if you read my comments on my style in this thread, it should be obvious that I have no such contract to break faith with.
The advice you gave was all about managing pacing and as written seemed intended to be universal. My point was/is that managing pacing like that only applies to a small subset of games.Please read the thread before commenting. This was in response to a poster saying they had "never experienced this style of play". Not "never had an ongoing home campaign using this style" or the like. They said they had decades of play, were a good GM and had NEVER experienced this style of play. They did not put conditions on the "never". I was expressing surprise that they hadn't seen this style of play, not advocating it as a template for them.
And yes I did read the thread up to whatever post I quoted, before quoting that post.