Lyxen
Great Old One
With respect, your post is almost impossible to respond to. But I'm going to try.
Nope. Sorry. This is not what I wrote.
Repeating it just highlights the fact that you added the part which is between brackets. It's not mine.
Good for you. Now how do I know that your games would suit our groups ? I don't.
I'm sorry but it is when you say: "try some other games or be a player in a game with a GM who is highly proficient in this mode"
As if I'd never been. Well, I claim that I have been in more games than you have, and with GMs who were way more proficient than you. In particular multi-years campaigns of Amber Diceless Games which are all about intrigue and with almost zero fights, and where trickery is really at the core of the game. Where does this leave you?
There is no such thing as "empirically" in this case you are not playing in our games and I'm not playing in yours. And there is certainly no statistical evidence either, just personal, limited experiences, and you claiming that yours are satisfactory and that you are highly proficient does not mean that you would be considered as such for me, and that they would be satisfactory to me (and the other way around, possibly).
Yes, it is, see above the part about "highly skilled".
No, sorry, that is assuming (again, patronising) that your experience is universal and applies to all games. I deny this. I have been playing in this mode for about 40 years now (admittedly, we were not there yet in our first years of play), and we are still having this conversation, as I have no special reason to believe your personal experience over mine.
I agree, and honestly, I'm probably the only one here who admits to making mistakes and explaining them, and being ashamed about them. I mean, real ones, not "oh yes I made a mistake but actually this is to show off how great I am" like some other contributors here.
But on this, I'm sorry, but all the theoretical discourse of players just wanting more control and feeling entitled to it (not yours, but see above about patronising), does not ring a bell with my personal experience. All these tools are just that, tools. Forbidding yourself to use them for theoretical reasons (And again, not you, but for others here at the same time being a horrible person to people you play with) is just being self-righteous. Especially since it's really easy to claim that over the internet, but I'd really like to be a little mouse to watch some games being played (especially after listening to the grand talks of some people here with one eye while reading the summary of their plays with the other).
So why don't you try for a little more modesty and open-mindedness, rather than claiming that you are highly skilled and that you have empirical proof that applies to every game ever played on the planet ?
I make no such claim, I'm just pointing out that using such tools now and then, especially with players who are aware that they might be used and have no objection, allows us to run extremely successful games in that mode where the players are enthusiastic and ask for more. So maybe it's you who could revise your position slightly rather than claim that it's absolute and all-encompassing ?
I'll leave you with a paragraph from the rules of engagement in Amber DRPG which I've always found very useful in running complex games...
A Little History.
Back in World War I, in the war for East Africa, the Germans would send raiders across the desert, to harass and loot the better-equipped, but poorly defended, British outposts. The survival of these commando missions, and the men who performed them, depended on an exact knowledge of the whereabouts of fresh water holes. In the African heat, that water was the difference between life and death, because a light, fast-moving force couldn't carry enough water. This fact was obvious to both sides.
Eventually the Germans were forced to abandon their raids. One by one, all the critical water holes were found marked with Skull-and-Crossbones signs reading "POISON!" in several languages, and surrounded with the bloated bodies of dead animals.
After the war, the Germans protested. "The use of poison," they said, "is expressly prohibited by the Geneva Convention. You have broken the rules of conduct and should be charged as war criminals!"
The British protested that they were completely innocent. They never used poison. As they pointed out, "Where in the rules of the Geneva
Convention does it prohibit posting signs and scattering around a few dead animals?"
If you want to keep someone from using a water hole, it doesn't matter if it contains poison. What matters is whether or not you can get them to believe that the hole is poison.
Nothing in the rules prevented the British from lying.
There are "Rules of Engagement" in role-playing as well. They define what a Game Master can and cannot do. Abiding by the Rules of Engagement assures the players that the roleplaying will be conducted fairly. However, fair doesn't necessarily mean honest. The British forces succeeded in making the Germans believe their water was poisoned, without breaking the rules! It's up to the Game Master to feed the players everything they see, hear, smell, taste, feel, sense and remember. According to the Rules of Engagement, these must always be
reported honestly. Game Masters don't cheat, because that would be breaking the rules. There's nothing in the rules prohibiting lies.
"I'm sorry, but these devious tools (Illusionism and Force) become critical and almost a necessity."
Nope. Sorry. This is not what I wrote.
"I'm sorry, but these devious tools (Illusionism and Force) become critical and almost a necessity."
Repeating it just highlights the fact that you added the part which is between brackets. It's not mine.
This claim is not true. It is empirically not true. These tools are not critical for "story-oriented play, especially if you have a lot of intrigue, and therefore a lot of improvisation" (your claim).
How do I know its not true? Because I don't use them and I do exactly what you say. There are plenty of people on this very forum who have been PCs in my game who can corroborate. There are plenty of other GMs who do the exact same thing without the deployment of "these devious tools" as you put them.
Good for you. Now how do I know that your games would suit our groups ? I don't.
Its not patronising to point this out.
I'm sorry but it is when you say: "try some other games or be a player in a game with a GM who is highly proficient in this mode"
As if I'd never been. Well, I claim that I have been in more games than you have, and with GMs who were way more proficient than you. In particular multi-years campaigns of Amber Diceless Games which are all about intrigue and with almost zero fights, and where trickery is really at the core of the game. Where does this leave you?
There is no way to dispute your claim rather than either (a) playing with you and having you witness it first-hand or (b) bringing up multiple independent lines of evidence to corroborate the reality that your claim is empirically not true.
There is no such thing as "empirically" in this case you are not playing in our games and I'm not playing in yours. And there is certainly no statistical evidence either, just personal, limited experiences, and you claiming that yours are satisfactory and that you are highly proficient does not mean that you would be considered as such for me, and that they would be satisfactory to me (and the other way around, possibly).
So that is what I've done (b). You can feel about that however you'd like, but its not me patronising.
Yes, it is, see above the part about "highly skilled".
And no, this is clearly not a mode of play ("Play to Find Out" Story Now) you've been playing for a very long time (referencing your 2nd paragraph). If that were true, you wouldn't make this empirically untrue claim in the first place and we wouldn't be having this conversation!
No, sorry, that is assuming (again, patronising) that your experience is universal and applies to all games. I deny this. I have been playing in this mode for about 40 years now (admittedly, we were not there yet in our first years of play), and we are still having this conversation, as I have no special reason to believe your personal experience over mine.
I've made wrong claims in my life. I've drawn wrong inferences. I've told people who have done a thing or born witness to a thing that I doubt their conclusions. They've proven me wrong and I've revised my opinion. They weren't patronising me. They were just disputing my claim. And later, when I realized I was wrong...I was glad for their correction.
This is normal stuff.
I agree, and honestly, I'm probably the only one here who admits to making mistakes and explaining them, and being ashamed about them. I mean, real ones, not "oh yes I made a mistake but actually this is to show off how great I am" like some other contributors here.
But on this, I'm sorry, but all the theoretical discourse of players just wanting more control and feeling entitled to it (not yours, but see above about patronising), does not ring a bell with my personal experience. All these tools are just that, tools. Forbidding yourself to use them for theoretical reasons (And again, not you, but for others here at the same time being a horrible person to people you play with) is just being self-righteous. Especially since it's really easy to claim that over the internet, but I'd really like to be a little mouse to watch some games being played (especially after listening to the grand talks of some people here with one eye while reading the summary of their plays with the other).
So why don't you try for a little more modesty and open-mindedness, rather than claiming that you are highly skilled and that you have empirical proof that applies to every game ever played on the planet ?
I make no such claim, I'm just pointing out that using such tools now and then, especially with players who are aware that they might be used and have no objection, allows us to run extremely successful games in that mode where the players are enthusiastic and ask for more. So maybe it's you who could revise your position slightly rather than claim that it's absolute and all-encompassing ?
I'll leave you with a paragraph from the rules of engagement in Amber DRPG which I've always found very useful in running complex games...
A Little History.
Back in World War I, in the war for East Africa, the Germans would send raiders across the desert, to harass and loot the better-equipped, but poorly defended, British outposts. The survival of these commando missions, and the men who performed them, depended on an exact knowledge of the whereabouts of fresh water holes. In the African heat, that water was the difference between life and death, because a light, fast-moving force couldn't carry enough water. This fact was obvious to both sides.
Eventually the Germans were forced to abandon their raids. One by one, all the critical water holes were found marked with Skull-and-Crossbones signs reading "POISON!" in several languages, and surrounded with the bloated bodies of dead animals.
After the war, the Germans protested. "The use of poison," they said, "is expressly prohibited by the Geneva Convention. You have broken the rules of conduct and should be charged as war criminals!"
The British protested that they were completely innocent. They never used poison. As they pointed out, "Where in the rules of the Geneva
Convention does it prohibit posting signs and scattering around a few dead animals?"
If you want to keep someone from using a water hole, it doesn't matter if it contains poison. What matters is whether or not you can get them to believe that the hole is poison.
Nothing in the rules prevented the British from lying.
There are "Rules of Engagement" in role-playing as well. They define what a Game Master can and cannot do. Abiding by the Rules of Engagement assures the players that the roleplaying will be conducted fairly. However, fair doesn't necessarily mean honest. The British forces succeeded in making the Germans believe their water was poisoned, without breaking the rules! It's up to the Game Master to feed the players everything they see, hear, smell, taste, feel, sense and remember. According to the Rules of Engagement, these must always be
reported honestly. Game Masters don't cheat, because that would be breaking the rules. There's nothing in the rules prohibiting lies.