There's also the very strong possibility that the players play in-character, the GM runs the world as a sim-engine, and interesting stories happen anyway.
I used to follow a podcast, where they made frequent mention of something called "the adventuring paradigm"
<snip>
I would say that D&D also has a strong adventuring paradigm, without DM intervention.
If the world is set up for it, then interesting stories should happen all over the place.
In this approach, the GM frontloads his/her "intervention" into world design. What exactly the expectations are for the players (what is their job, what sort of pleasure are they meant to get out of play, etc) will depend on individual groups, on what considerations inform the GM's world design, etc.
In classic Gygaxian style, the GM might design a single megadungeon with layered levels in easy walking distance from the PCs' home town. Or, in classic 2nd ed style, the GM might have mercenaries working for the evil overlord attack the PCs' home town. Different starting points, and different shared understandings of how the players should respond and engage, will produce different play experiences.
Though getting rid of the metagame is hard. If the players in the Gygaxian game decide that their PCs don't want to take the risk of exploring the dungeon, not much will happen. If the players in the 2nd ed game decide that their PCs surrender to the mercenaries, not much will happen.
The Gygaxian game is probably less prone to illusionism. The players want to explore and loot the dungeon, they choose to have their PCs similarly motivated, and the focus of the game is on dungeon hijinks.
The 2nd ed game is more prone to illusionism, because the 2nd ed rulebooks do not, in themseves, give the GM anything like the tools necessary to run a "resist the evil overlord" game in a way that doesn't deprotagonise the PCs.
I've never been a fan of protagonism, and I've never seen it as critical to any edition of D&D (with the possible exception of 4E). Maybe it's because I started with 2E, and that edition had more of a participationism ideal. For me, whenever something happens because you're the hero, it just feels hollow and kind of pointless; I would rather read a book, or watch a movie, than play that sort of game.
The bit about starting with 2nd ed doesn't surprise me.
The bit about why stuff happens does, though - or at least it confuses me a bit. Why do the mercenaries happen to attack just now, when the 4 PCs are gathered together at the town inn ready and able to confront them? Why is the decades or centuries old megadungeon waiting to be looted right now, rather than having been looted by some other random person days or weeks or years ago? The "adventure paradigm" you've described depends upon framing the adventure opportunities around the geographic and temporal circumstances of the PCs.
In the Gygaxian campaign, the GM is likely to drop rumours of a new dungeon, across the wilderness, once the PCs reach 3rd or 4th level. (But not before.) Why do the rumours emerge then? Because PCs of that level can survive a wilderness trek.
The world of D&D, much like the real world, is full of people who live ordinary lives that are - to the external observer - relatively dull. The PCs are not among them. But this is because the GM injects content having regard to metagame considerations. The "adventure paradigm" doesn't really avoid that - it is just a particular way of handling that metagame.
I also don't really follow your movie/book comparison - I will try and explain why below.
Your answer seems somewhat at odds with what was previously suggested, but taking both answers together, I can try to understand what people are saying here.
I think [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] is more strongly emphasising the social dimensions of illusionism - ie it is a type of cheating - whereas I was more strongly emphasising the techniques that are involved, and how they are related to the goals of play.
While I don't dissent from what Tony says, I think it is towards the harsher end of fair description. GMs who opt for illusionist techniques aren't (necessarily) "bad" - often they're just following instructions in rulebooks, or following models presented in rulebooks, and don't know any techniques for doing things differently.
It's also complicated because the line between illusioninsm and participationism is blurred. In a Cthulhu game where the GM is narrating my PC's descent into madness, I know that I am just there to have a good time. It is very much like watching a film, but - because I have the job of providing some colour for my character (eg the details of my ranting about the coming of Nyarlathotep) - it is a bit more immediate and intimate.
In a 2nd ed AD&D game, where I am engaging in the trappings of protagonism - making choices for my PC, rolling dice, etc - but I know that the GM is manipulating the fiction and even some of the mechanics to make these trappings irrelevant - it is a bit less clear. Even if I am a willing participant, I don't know where the GM is wielding power and where s/he is not. So the extent to which I am a mere participant is itself unclear, or shrouded in illusion.
I find this frustrating because I can't just sit back and enjoy the ride, because I'm expected to contribute something; but some of my contributions are irrelevant because the GM will negate them, and so it's hard to get very enthusiastic about contributing at all. Frustration is only compounded if the GM is being covert about the whole situation in the actual course of play (even if, in the abstract, we all know what the GM is doing) and so you find yourself caught in battles of power.
For instance, if I declare actions for my PC and the GM blocks (eg rope problems of the sort [MENTION=2656]Aenghus[/MENTION] was discussing upthread), how do I know whether this is the GM adjudicating the action resolution rules - and so I have to declare
more actions for my PC to work around the block - or the GM exercising power to shape the fiction in a particular direction - and so it is pointless for me to try and work around the block, and I should just sit back and wait to be told by the GM what happens? This sort of uncertainty, and hence practical impasse, is very common in my experience of 2nd ed-style play. Personally I hate it.
Once it is clear that the players' choices really do matter, and that they are capable of making a difference to the fiction in virtue of those choices, I think the experience becomes quite different from a movie or a book. Because the players become a species of co-author rather than mere audience.
