Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Reification versus ludification in 5E/6E
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 9623221" data-attributes="member: 6877472"><p>I should clarify, I wasn't the GM. As for why I felt dismay, it was simply the fact that no one took the illusion at face value, and instantly went into "oh that can't be real, let's poke/prod/search to prove that it wasn't" routine that makes Illusions so pointless in games.</p><p></p><p>(<a href="https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/c-d/cloak-of-fiery-vanishing/" target="_blank">the item in question</a>, for reference)</p><p></p><p>There shouldn't be a reason to assume that an Illusion is an illusion, in a game world where fantastical magic exists. And yet, all to often, characters in game instantly react to illusions attempting to disprove their existence, when that level of scrutiny is rarely applied to "real" effects.</p><p></p><p>In the case of the Cloak of Fiery Vanishing incident, the players' only clue that the NPC wasn't, in fact, reduced to ash, was their knowledge of game mechanics- they knew how much damage the fire spell did, and it didn't line up with their belief about the target's hit point total. One could argue that their reaction smacks of metagaming...though that's not an argument I'd make personally- the boundary between what your character knows and what you, the player, know has never been clear cut in D&D, and everyone defines it differently anyways.</p><p></p><p>The point is, either players nor DM's tend to take Illusions at face value, and both PC and NPC alike can be quickly seen to test the boundaries of such spells. I've hear people argue that because those spells do have boundaries, there's nothing wrong with this and it should be expected.</p><p></p><p>Which makes using most Illusions rather problematic- if no one is going to fall for them, then why bother? Just stick to the vast majority of spells that do have tangible effects.</p><p></p><p>Another anecdote to illustrate my point. Not long ago, my Wizard cast Wall of Force to trap a monster inside it. The creature didn't take time to test it's boundaries. Instead, it instantly realized "oh this is a Wall of Force" and used it's ability to Dimension Door beyond it's boundaries (that I didn't know it possessed when I cast the spell).</p><p></p><p>Now that's a fairly typical event in a game, no doubt.</p><p></p><p>But if that had been an ILLUSION of a Wall of Force, I'd instantly expect the creature to try and move through it, poke or prod it, or anything else required to prove it's fake. Because that's what I tend to see happen.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="James Gasik, post: 9623221, member: 6877472"] I should clarify, I wasn't the GM. As for why I felt dismay, it was simply the fact that no one took the illusion at face value, and instantly went into "oh that can't be real, let's poke/prod/search to prove that it wasn't" routine that makes Illusions so pointless in games. ([URL='https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/c-d/cloak-of-fiery-vanishing/']the item in question[/URL], for reference) There shouldn't be a reason to assume that an Illusion is an illusion, in a game world where fantastical magic exists. And yet, all to often, characters in game instantly react to illusions attempting to disprove their existence, when that level of scrutiny is rarely applied to "real" effects. In the case of the Cloak of Fiery Vanishing incident, the players' only clue that the NPC wasn't, in fact, reduced to ash, was their knowledge of game mechanics- they knew how much damage the fire spell did, and it didn't line up with their belief about the target's hit point total. One could argue that their reaction smacks of metagaming...though that's not an argument I'd make personally- the boundary between what your character knows and what you, the player, know has never been clear cut in D&D, and everyone defines it differently anyways. The point is, either players nor DM's tend to take Illusions at face value, and both PC and NPC alike can be quickly seen to test the boundaries of such spells. I've hear people argue that because those spells do have boundaries, there's nothing wrong with this and it should be expected. Which makes using most Illusions rather problematic- if no one is going to fall for them, then why bother? Just stick to the vast majority of spells that do have tangible effects. Another anecdote to illustrate my point. Not long ago, my Wizard cast Wall of Force to trap a monster inside it. The creature didn't take time to test it's boundaries. Instead, it instantly realized "oh this is a Wall of Force" and used it's ability to Dimension Door beyond it's boundaries (that I didn't know it possessed when I cast the spell). Now that's a fairly typical event in a game, no doubt. But if that had been an ILLUSION of a Wall of Force, I'd instantly expect the creature to try and move through it, poke or prod it, or anything else required to prove it's fake. Because that's what I tend to see happen. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Reification versus ludification in 5E/6E
Top