Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5180941" data-attributes="member: 4937">Of course you don't.You keep focusing on time.&nbsp; I don't recall making time a big issue in my distinctions.No, depending on what your 'whims' are and that they are actually whimsical, that's probably just improvisation.&nbsp; As an aside, I only have big problems as a player with illusionism when its improvised.&nbsp; Planned illusionism in small quantities doesn't bother me, provided there is still some allowance for players to make a meaningful choice.&nbsp; Both as a DM and a player, I believe in narrow-broad-narrow structures.&nbsp; Hooks and climaxes don't bother me, as long as you can make meaningful choices in between and to a lesser extent, determine which hook you'll take.However, as a player I detest improvised illusionism (and as a DM, I sometimes do it anyway, mostly to stop TPKs/deaths when I think I've been unfair to the player).&nbsp; Lately though, I'm learning to build illusionism into the scenario design, which interestingly lets me work out the math ahead of time and IMO be fairer to the player than either a strict simulation or improvisation would be.No, I said it was entirely in the deception.&nbsp; Illusionism is a trick.&nbsp; If you set down with your players and say, &quot;Hmmm... mind flayers would be cool.&nbsp; Why don't we agree to have mind flayers as the villain.&quot;, that isn't illusionism.&nbsp;&nbsp; If you say to your players, &quot;Hmmm.. a critical hit.&nbsp; I think I made this fight too hard, so let's have that hit take down the villain.&quot;, that isn't illusionism.&nbsp; If you say to your players, &quot;Well, I never had decided on who the murderer was, but the Grand Visor sounds like a good choice, so let's go with that.&quot;, that isn't illusionism either. Some games pull the curtain away like that deliberately and even mechanically.&nbsp;&nbsp; But if you pull those sort of tricks and don't inform the players, then that is illusionism. It's up to you as a DM to decide whether you can live with that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 5180941, member: 4937"] Of course you don't. You keep focusing on time. I don't recall making time a big issue in my distinctions. No, depending on what your 'whims' are and that they are actually whimsical, that's probably just improvisation. As an aside, I only have big problems as a player with illusionism when its improvised. Planned illusionism in small quantities doesn't bother me, provided there is still some allowance for players to make a meaningful choice. Both as a DM and a player, I believe in narrow-broad-narrow structures. Hooks and climaxes don't bother me, as long as you can make meaningful choices in between and to a lesser extent, determine which hook you'll take. However, as a player I detest improvised illusionism (and as a DM, I sometimes do it anyway, mostly to stop TPKs/deaths when I think I've been unfair to the player). Lately though, I'm learning to build illusionism into the scenario design, which interestingly lets me work out the math ahead of time and IMO be fairer to the player than either a strict simulation or improvisation would be. No, I said it was entirely in the deception. Illusionism is a trick. If you set down with your players and say, "Hmmm... mind flayers would be cool. Why don't we agree to have mind flayers as the villain.", that isn't illusionism. If you say to your players, "Hmmm.. a critical hit. I think I made this fight too hard, so let's have that hit take down the villain.", that isn't illusionism. If you say to your players, "Well, I never had decided on who the murderer was, but the Grand Visor sounds like a good choice, so let's go with that.", that isn't illusionism either. Some games pull the curtain away like that deliberately and even mechanically. But if you pull those sort of tricks and don't inform the players, then that is illusionism. It's up to you as a DM to decide whether you can live with that. [/QUOTE]

Verification