Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8695255" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Because the former reflects an imagined world that exists independently of the players' choices, and in which the consequences of those choices are durable and meaningful.The latter is exactly equivalent to Skyrim, where the monsters level up to match you whenever you enter a dungeon and the market-stall assassination (or at least the attempt thereof) of an NPC only occurs the second you arrive because it's a scripted event.You make a great deal out of the fact that it's a live DM there doing the thing.Sure they are. You've repeatedly said they are: that they put forward an illusion, not merely an imagined world that doesn't exist but a false description of that world, ensuring that the players' beliefs about what occurred are in fact false, not merely imaginary. You've agreed when people have described it that way, as an illusion disguising the true state of affairs (namely, that the choice involved wasn't a choice at all). Why is it suddenly not that now? What changed?DMs should be brave enough to accept that the things they create will not always come up in play. Like...if a DM literally can't accept that the thing he thought was super duper ultra cool just didn't interest the party, or (by pure coincidence) didn't end up being what the players wanted to investigate even if they were ignorant of that specific part, the problem is that DM, not the players.DMs, like artists, must learn how to let go of their art at least some of the time. Learn that sometimes, even the things you think are masterpieces...aren't. Using trickery and deception to ensure that your masterpieces always end up in front of the players means intentionally ignoring this extremely important lesson. That's both unwise and counterproductive.I get, very much, the disappointment of seeing something you prepared go up in smoke because the players (coincidentally, totally by accident) didn't happen to play ball. That's a learning experience....assuming you don't slap the lesson away and force it to happen the way you want. And yes, this has happened to me. Two or three times now, at least. Probably more I'm forgetting. I've mentioned one in various places before (the molten obsidian golem my players cleverly shut down with no fighting at all, despite me having geared it up to be a huge epic battle.) I've had at least one dungeon and at least one NPC, totally separately, which I put a lot of work into making. They never came up, and the game moved on. I can accept that that happens sometimes. It seems to me that the pro-railroad crowd is saying, in effect, "But this thing that was important to me is more important than being respectful to my players."I have met such people. I don't really think they're all that relevant here.No. It's invisible because the DM hides away all the evidence that might reveal it. That's the point. That's my WHOLE point here. You keep acting like every player is some dumb rube, too stupid to figure out when they're being hoodwinked. That's both an incredibly disrespectful view of players, and in my experience completely, dead wrong.My players are sharp. Being perfectly honest, none of them is as intelligent as I am, but that doesn't mean they are anything less than highly intelligent. They have more than once made me sweat bullets because I was worried they would feel disappointed by "seeing through" some events or secrets or the like. Collectively, they are absolutely smarter than I am.If you're going to claim it's a dissimile, it is beholden on you to actually show why it's a dissimile, not just use some other dissimile to...argue by analogy that the analogy is bad. So please, tell me why what I actually said was incorrect, don't just tell me the comparison is like some other bad comparison. Otherwise, this whole paragraph was just a non-sequitur that said nothing more than "I don't like your argument, it reminds me of a bad argument."In fact, in general, you keep using arguments by analogy, and those arguments by analogy end up having problems. I don't think that tactic is serving you very well, and it certainly didn't serve you well here.The DM sure as heck does. Why else are they concealing things from the players?With a magic trick, anyone with even a modicum of education knows it's not real. The illusionism-using DM is specifically ensuring that  their players believe it IS real, and moreover, actively hiding any information which could have suggested otherwise. Since you seem to like these arguments by analogy: It would be like a magician trying to "prove" that their magic is in fact completely legitimate, by providing edited and manipulated video tapes that appear to show the magic being physically real, and destroying all other records that could contradict those manipulated tapes.This is the repeated problem your analogies keep having: the deception is explicitly part of play here. In poker, bluffing is explicitly a component of the experience. You choose to play, knowing that other players will try to play mind games with you in order to get an advantage. Likewise, in sports, you are explicitly competing against the other team. You are aware that you need to accurately predict the opponent's actions and obfuscate your own actions. (As with most competitive sports and games, this is what makes it similar to warfare, and is a major component of why strategic games are an important part of military education.)Again: with the illusionism DM, they do not want the player to ever think that sleight of hand is happening. They want the player to genuinely believe that the superficial situation--choices that actually do matter--is in fact the true situation, when it isn't. And they will actively hide away any evidence that this isn't the case. Go looking just about anywhere and you'll see that nearly everyone who advocates for fudging, for example (which isn't railroading per se, but absolutely is a form of illusionism) will expressly say that you SHOULD fudge, but IF you do, NEVER EVER let the players find out. The deception is NOT explicitly part of play, and is in fact kept very hush-hush, hidden away, denying the players even the opportunity to discover that a deception might occur at all while specifically leading them on so they'll believe what they're told.In other words...make your players be "the clueless." Make them think the rolls are real, when they aren't, in the case of fudging. Matt Colville even explicitly said that in his games, he will pre-roll dice and hide them behind his screen, so that if players challenge him over whether he actually rolled a certain value or not, he can lift the screen and "show" them that that's what the die really said.This is what I mean by making the players be "the clueless." This is actively deceiving.My players have contributed to the shared fiction in the following ways, all of which either came because I prompted it, or they volunteered it and I enthusiastically embraced it (because I LOVE it when they do so):1. Inventing an organization or society that is active in the world. For example, the of Robin Hood-esque Silver Thread thieves/pickpockets/etc., who work to keep the shadows safe for the common man and fight against the oppression of the poor by high society. This included Rahim, the dashing prince of thieves who leads them. Lovely character. I always enjoy portraying him, all suave and good-humored.2. Establishing historical characters of significance, such as long-dead saints, former rulers, particular ancient genies, etc.3. Mythopoeia, telling us the nursery rhyme or Nomad Tribe story-ritual or bawdy tavern song where the character heard about something.4. Personal connections, e.g. loved ones, rivals, former friends, etc. One character, for example, has a vast extended family, who are willing to provide help, so long as it reflects well on them within the clan.5. Requests, such as wanting to find a teacher of the Dance of the Wizard's Blade (a magical martial art) or wanting to find lost or apocryphal books of strategic theory and practice.6. On-the-spot NPCs invented to explain how or why the character knows a particular fact or has been to a particular place etc.I'm sure there are other ways. As I said, I LOVE it when my players do this, because it means they're engaged and enthusiastic enough to want to contribute their own things, make their own mark on the world. Several organizations and concepts in this world wouldn't exist without player input, and I strive to keep them as close to the player's original concept as possible, out of respect for them and their ideas. In return, my players know not to abuse this, contributing things they're sincerely enthusiastic about, not just memelord crap or silly pop-culture references. (Though we do occasionally do silly things in game, to maintain a certain sense of levity.)</blockquote>

Verification