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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5181562" data-attributes="member: 4937">LOL.  Sure, there is a difference, but it isn't in illusionism.Look at it this way, what is the difference between the player choosing to wish for a sword and it being provided by the GM and the GM telling the players, choose a door, one of which leads to a magic sword and the other of which leads to (da da da Dum) Certain Doom and then giving them the magic sword option whichever door they choose?Yes but the former (or my counter example) also provide the "illusion of choice", but they also provide the "illusion of success", so you are 'ok' with that.  In other words, what you mind isn't your choices being taken away from you.  You are ok with that as long as you get to appear to win.  It's like saying, "I'm ok with you providing choices, just so long as no matter what I do they always lead to what I want."But, this is true in the former case too, it's just more subtle.  We've recently had a poster in the legacy house rules forum whose suffering from a DM who is basically railroading them with success.  He's finding out that no matter what he chooses, he wins.  You see, the reason most players buy into"the GM telling the players, choose a door, one of which leads to a magic sword and the other of which leads to (da da da Dum) Certain Doom and then giving them the magic sword option whichever door they choose?"and not the other is because you want to.  You don't question the railroad until it becomes uncomfortable.  Most players rebel very quickly at railroaded failure, but it takes most players alot longer to pick up on railroaded success.  But reallly if you are going to object to two doors that both lead to certain doom, then in fairness you ought to object to the two doors that both lead to the magic sword.  And if you don't, you are giving thumbs up to the illusion.</blockquote>

Verification