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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Golroc" data-source="post: 9115569" data-attributes="member: 7042497">Yes and no, as the term "illusion" is never what we've called it. It's been more about whether to roll the dice in front or behind the screen. I've also been on the player side of these talks - and the angle was just.. different. We've focused more on what kind of setting, what system, what kind of overall narrative, etc. and not so much about the expectations of how to be a GM. I'll try to explain why I find even the concept of framing the conversation as you describe somewhat odd. (although in the future I will approach this differently when dealing with new acquaintances)I guess having played mostly with friends it's never really been a problem to align on the stylistic side. That doesn't mean every session was always a creative firework where DM discretion, preparation and player contribution gave way to a perfect experience. Sometimes that GM came up with something dumb, the GM discretion went too far, the rolls turned wrecking things beyond what discretion could fix. Or we followed published material and it didn't work out. It's not like it is always been perfect. But "you lied!" has never been something that came up - however "that was dull/silly/weird" has come up. I have seen players upset at the GM for not fudging rolls/circumstances to prevent character deaths - but not particularly often. I have also seen players upset at the GM for getting the challenge wrong (in the direction of high lethality), but that was about getting the discretion wrong, not about having it in the first place. No one ever said "this should have been prepared in advance and the GM shouldn't change it once we've started the session".Perhaps an explanation is that none of the groups I've played in have enjoyed the style of gaming where the point is to beat some challenging sandbox or set-piece "dungeon" through clever use of game mechanics or (in or out of character) cleverness. We've certainly played crunch-heavy at times, and fudging rules/rolls has generally been the exception. It's always been mostly about character development, role-playing, narratives and world building.This is across decades of gaming and groups in three different cities. I have met people with different playstyles - usually either power-gamers or ones with ritualized approaches to gaming that were incompatible with my desires at the time (that's for another post). In those cases, I just didn't play more than one or two sessions with this combination of people (could be an individual, could be a group). I have also played at conventions where I had no idea whether the GM was fudging anything or not, but I've honestly never experienced anyone asking about whether this was ok or not.I am actually currently without a group - but if I got back with some of the previous groups we wouldn't need to have this talk. DM discretion and player creative input through action is just how we did things, and I really don't think we'd even consider discussing it (although I might mention that I've come across people who play differently and ask what they think about that).If my next group isn't one with familiar faces, it depends a bit on whether I am GM or not how I'd approach figuring out the social contract. As a visiting player, it's pretty simple to figure out what is expected. As a player joining a long-term campaign, I'd make sure the group aligned with my preferences (but that's probably more about whether I feel the chemistry is there than the system to use). As a guest GM, I think it's incredibly important to get consensus in place. When the time comes to GM a campaign again, I'll certainly make sure the players have the same preferences (by playing one-offs, conversations, session 0, etc.)  before committing to a campaign. But there's a lot more ground to cover than whether GM discretion is allowed or not. It would probably be a hard pass for me if that's not part of the package.I guess my experience with GM discretion is why I am slightly confused at the opposition to illusion (and even the concept of labelling it thus) in this thread - it wasn't ever a conversation we had. Many people in this thread seem to consider "illusion" the deviation from the norm - but that's not how it's been for me or my groups. People don't tend to discuss something they consider the norm.The notion of the GM simply being an arbiter, NPC controller and scenario designer is so far removed from what we considered the role of the GM that I think we'd consider it an exotic experiment to try it out. But to me it sounds like a board game or miniature game with extra steps. I think for me playing an RPG where the GM isn't injecting ad hoc creativity is just plain worse. I can see how I could enjoy something like Dungeon World, The Burning Wheel, etc. - that's a different way of contributing to a dynamic narrative than I'm used to, but I think it could be fun. (one group did do something like this for a few sessions but without codifying it, we just allowed players to state reality whenever). However I don't think a purely "static reality" would be fun for me.Player narrative input however, is something that has been a topic. Not to the point of codifying it, but having talks about how much influence players have at sessions and between sessions in shaping the narrative and the world. I've played with groups that had a rotating GM chair, for example (with the same campaign, characters and narrative). But I've never experienced conflicts around narrative agency and/or authority (whereas as I have experienced clashes regarding intra-player conflict, individuals dominating the sessions socially, players having character concepts that made the game less fun for others, players disliking a system, players disliking a setting, etc.) I have seen conflicts where the GM was upset with the players for not taking the game seriously enough. So it's kind of interesting to see 'illusion' as a point of contention, when it just never came up.So in conclusion - no, I never asked this question (nor was I ever asked by a GM), as we've always assumed that (responsible and restrained, yet theoretically total) GM creative authority was the baseline. It is probably the one aspect of gameplay which has been constant across the decades. But this thread has certainly prepared me that I might encounter players who assume differently (which I did already consider, just in a slightly different optic as described above).</blockquote>

Verification