Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="bloodtide" data-source="post: 8977004" data-attributes="member: 6684958">That is also the exact reason it is done.Some GMs are good, some are bad, and most of the bulk fall into the middle of average.&nbsp; So some two thirds of all games are going to have flaws, deiscripences,&nbsp; errors, and such.&nbsp; And RPG is a hard thing to GM, taking lots of skills and experience. Now if it's a casual game, or the GM is playing with their &quot;best buds&quot;, it's not such a big deal.&nbsp; The GM can just say &quot;Woopsie Daisy, My Bad&quot; and the players will just say &quot;It's no big deal&quot; and mean what they say truly.Now if it's any other sort of social game, or if every single player is not the best of &quot;best buds&quot; with the GM or if any player has an agenda, then it can be a big deal.&nbsp; One or more of the players can make little spiteful jokes, backhanded jabs, outright insults, scathing commentaries, and down the path of even worse things.&nbsp; So it is much better for a GM to get caught doing some &quot;illusionism&quot;.&nbsp; A great many players will &quot;accept&quot; that the GM did some illusionism as many think it's &quot;ok from time to time&quot;.&nbsp; But a huge number of players will be ready to go down that dark road as soon as they think the GM is &quot;not good&quot;.Randomness can be a whole thread.&nbsp; But a random table only gives you so many results.&nbsp; And you can only get the same results over and over again.&nbsp; What you really need are a huge number of tables with a huge number of results.&nbsp; And premade tables only have &quot;whatever some person somewhere thought of&quot; and even if a person makes thier own tables they will still often fall under &quot;only what they like&quot; or &quot;only what they can think of&quot;.Well, maybe not the ONLY reason.I wonder what you think of the reverse illusionism?The GM has a nice set encounter planned with a werebear.&nbsp; The player is nicely moving right towards that encounter.&nbsp; But then the character spots a nearby pack of wererat.&nbsp; The player jumps at the chance and has the character attack.&nbsp; The third round of combat, a wererat strikes with what will be a killing blow to the character.&nbsp; Is it all right here for the GM to invalidate the players choice of &quot;unwisely attacking a pack a wererats alone&quot;, with some illusionism of &quot;no character death&quot; because the GM wants the character at the big werebear boss fight?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="bloodtide, post: 8977004, member: 6684958"] That is also the exact reason it is done. Some GMs are good, some are bad, and most of the bulk fall into the middle of average. So some two thirds of all games are going to have flaws, deiscripences, errors, and such. And RPG is a hard thing to GM, taking lots of skills and experience. Now if it's a casual game, or the GM is playing with their "best buds", it's not such a big deal. The GM can just say "Woopsie Daisy, My Bad" and the players will just say "It's no big deal" and mean what they say truly. Now if it's any other sort of social game, or if every single player is not the best of "best buds" with the GM or if any player has an agenda, then it can be a big deal. One or more of the players can make little spiteful jokes, backhanded jabs, outright insults, scathing commentaries, and down the path of even worse things. So it is much better for a GM to get caught doing some "illusionism". A great many players will "accept" that the GM did some illusionism as many think it's "ok from time to time". But a huge number of players will be ready to go down that dark road as soon as they think the GM is "not good". Randomness can be a whole thread. But a random table only gives you so many results. And you can only get the same results over and over again. What you really need are a huge number of tables with a huge number of results. And premade tables only have "whatever some person somewhere thought of" and even if a person makes thier own tables they will still often fall under "only what they like" or "only what they can think of". Well, maybe not the ONLY reason. I wonder what you think of the reverse illusionism? The GM has a nice set encounter planned with a werebear. The player is nicely moving right towards that encounter. But then the character spots a nearby pack of wererat. The player jumps at the chance and has the character attack. The third round of combat, a wererat strikes with what will be a killing blow to the character. Is it all right here for the GM to invalidate the players choice of "unwisely attacking a pack a wererats alone", with some illusionism of "no character death" because the GM wants the character at the big werebear boss fight? [/QUOTE]

Verification