Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5180961" data-attributes="member: 22779">In a mind blowing turn of events, I keep finding myself nodding in agreement with everything Celebrim says.  It's a weird day.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  Can't posrep again though.  Sigh.If I'm understanding things correctly, there's a spectrum of illusionism.  At one end, you create a scenario (or whatever) completely independently from the players and make absolutely no adjustments, either before or during play, to accomodate that scenario to the players.  If you were to pick up a module, run it verbatim without any regard for the characters the players have created, this would be an example of zero illusionism.However, once you start changing elements based upon the characters and the players, the level of illusionism increases.  If you have a player that uses Bohemian Ear Spoons and you drop a magical Bohemian Ear Spoon into your adventure specifically for him to find, this would be a very low level of illusionism - you've introduced elements to reward the players, not because it makes any sort of sense in the game.Beyond that, we get into what Celebrim terms Hard Illusionism, where at the very far extreme, the DM is constantly adjusting each and every element to suit a particular asthetic and goal.  The way he's built this definition, it's pretty neutral either way.  If the players like what's going on, it's not a bad thing.  If the players object, then the level is too high and the DM probably needs to ratchet it down a bit.Celebrim, this is a very robust definition you've built here.</blockquote>

Verification