Search results

I had specifically chosen to not mention that section because I have significant issues with it. But yes, it does exist, and I have no better opinion of it than you do, I suspect.

"Every" is a bit of a strong claim there.

Seriously? You're really going to ask me "how do you know that half the guides on the internet tell people to fudge"? You're really going to question this? No. I'm not going to dance this dance with you. You and I both know that this is an extremely, extraordinarily common thing. It's...

"Illusion" is not the same as "illusionism". The former is the (IMO poorly-chosen) word for us choosing to imagine something that is not the case, but which we can The latter is deceiving the players themselves. It is pretending that imagined-situation A is what the players are operating on...

Indeed. Even if these numbers were inflated to double the rate of regular GMs, that would still mean ~19% of them fudge in at least one way (monster HP). Having one in five GMs fudging is a pretty high rate, I should think.

I mean I think it's nearly irrefutable that many, many GMs out there fudge, deploy quantum ogres, and/or "allow" things while then taking pains to ensure that the thing in question is functionally impossible despite being "allowed". If a person considers those things cheating, and I absolutely...

And I respect this choice. As noted, I think such a thing is perfectly compatible with achieving all of the ends that a GM who fudges wants to achieve, without any of the negatives of fudging. It requires some mixture of meaningful preparation and/or willingness to improvise new setting...

Note they have blocked me so I can't engage with anything they've said, and won't mention them again beyond this sentence. My references to the story part seem just as relevant for this "paidia"? That is, even in maximally unstructured play, how can you express, how can you understand in order...

Oh, if you want a non-tautological criticism of deception, I've had one for years. Learning to play the game. In order to learn to play the game, you have to be able to correctly understand how your actions were the thing that caused particular good/bad effects. Your choice needs to be the...

Same reason why anyone would argue against anyone else's application of a term, when the user believes they're correct: because the person arguing against it believes they aren't. I was responding to others who had asserted that "railroading" is always deceptive. I don't think that's true. I...

The only connotation I can think of for "campaign" is that it'll last a relatively decent time--not necessarily a "long-runner", since people usually use more specific terms when they want to communicate that idea. But it's generally in contrast to a single-adventure or "one-shot", where the...

Absolutely! If the reason is "I want to continue playing my character Gathrog the Toesmasher, as he was in a previous game", that's probably not going to work. But in my experience, most people who have one or two really really beloved races aren't nearly so persnickety about nitty-gritty...

The description given for the unacceptable player thing was the player getting to play, in every possible way that could ever matter to them, the exact character they wish to play. That was considered unacceptable. The player is expected to compromise on at least some parts of the character they...

I was under the impression that that wasn't considered appropriate, as in, the GM doing any effort at all to try to make the player's desire happen, albeit in an altered form or with different context, was "rewriting reality" or bowing and scraping when the GM should be "pulling rank". I mean...

Of course, this is a bit like saying "It's not mind control if the person never tries to do anything the mind control would prevent." And that's not even getting into the whole "the odds of no rail ever getting tested vanish to 0 rapidly with game length" thing. Unless you're working with...

Okay. I think players being afforded the same experience--that they can't get exactly the character they want, but they should have a reasonable expectation that they can "get close", because it "isn't worth it to" them if they can't. Separately And I'm quite well aware that the context of a...

For me, that would be an example of lack-of-discussion. The GM failed to tell the players that they were on rails...but never told them they weren't on rails either. The dragon shows up to tell people to get back on track because the GM knows the group is on rails, and the players don't. The GM...

Okay. Now consider this in the light of my response above to AlViking. I consider it to be discourteous for anyone at the table to demand perfection of their vision. Anyone. Full stop.

I don't think there is a logical answer possible in this context. We're talking about messy humans. Reasonable is the best we can hope for. Because I definitely think it's not logical to tell others not to insult oneself, but having no particular concern about whether a third party insults the...

And I expect that same courtesy from everyone at the table. GM included. Nobody has the right to absolute perfection of their vision to the exclusion of all other participants.