Why 'Sandbox' is a meaningless phrase

[Satinavian]

I have experimented with illusionism myself and it is much easier than you think. Most of the time it isn't needed as soon you get a buy in the players only need gentle guidance. I ran two groups through the same around 5 session adventure and managed to get the same results both times. Sorry to say I don't have the time and inclination to get bigger sample group.

Ignoring the small smaple size, how do you actually know that none of these ~10 players did see through it ? Did you ask them ?

[Pleh]

Tell that to one of my friends who found out his dad had lived a double life and had another family in another country, he was a business man and often abroad. He found out when his father died and his half brother went to court to get his part of the inheritance. Seems like his father managed to fool everybody all of the time.

That isn't fooling all the people all the time. That is fooling some people all the time, since the group being considered is very small.

You can argue that a game group is always a small group and therefore it is possible to fool them all the time, but it is certainly not correct to describe it as fooling all the people all the time.

And you'd have to admit that the more people you add, the less likely your universal success.

[Darth Ultron]

It's as much of a random mess as the real world is. Actually less, because the game world has a verifiable creator that demonstrably exists. No D&D players have ever wondered "Is there really a DM?" because they can see the DM at the table with them.

This is my point, and brace yourself here: D&D is just a game. It's not real.

[Florian]

Stop moving the goalposts.

The argument was your claim that the Abraham Lincoln quote is wrong. That is what people objected to.

No one was questioning that advertising works somewhat. Or is particularly interested in discussing how advertising works.

I´m not moving the goal posts. I claim that you can do all people, all the time. You "just" need the skill-set and mentality of a good conman or grifter (ready for a long con), not just the ability to use a lever and know how to push some buttons, which was what the marketing boast is all about.

That starts with being consistent in behavior and performance, knowing your "tells" and leveraging them, to practicing your act and doing it from the get-go. You'll also have to put some thought into it, for example how to sandwich a lie between layers of truth, how to introduce the particular methods that you're gonna use early and in a non-damaging manner, how to build up trust and have them follow your lead and who to rope in and use as an accessory to a "two man job".

Folks are generally good at noticing the small details, but often draw a blank when it comes to the big stuff, as they're not used to dealing with that level. To paraphrase Columbo: "What's there that wasn't there before, what was there before that isn't there now and what's been moved?". Such things matter when you're going into illusionism.

People tend to notice the difference between you reading a boxed text in a module and coming up with stuff once they left the rails, or they will tend to notice your behavior when you're thinking or be forced to come up with stuff on the fly, especially when the detail level of the encounters you provide will change dramatically or you suddenly use force methods that you didn't use before.

That's why you establish certain patterns. Astonished outrage is a good one, "You do WHAT?! Ok, let me think..." is a good one when you establish it early on, even if not necessary, and so on.

[Max_Killjoy]

People who think they're the best at fooling others tend to just be the best at fooling themselves.

[Segev]

This is my point, and brace yourself here: D&D is just a game. It's not real.

Nobody is disputing that. The conclusions you leap to from that premise, however, would put Olympic ski jumpers to shame for the distance and airtime required to achieve them.

So far, your logic, such as it is, has been, "Games are not real life, therefore anything that isn't the DM leading players by the nose is a random mess."

Or, to apply symbolic logic to it:

Premise: A
Therefore: B

No actual logical steps connecting A and B. Just bald declarations. I can as easily say, "Because this is a forum, Darth Ultron has never actually run a game with actual players." The logical connection is just as solid.

[Florian]

People who think they're the best at fooling others tend to just be the best at fooling themselves.

Nice comforting though, ain´t it?

[Max_Killjoy]

Nice comforting though, ain´t it?

On the flip side, people who are utterly convinced that they cannot be fooled, end up being really fooled when it happens.

(But on the first one "people who think they're the best at fooling others...", we have at least one glaring example in this thread.)

[kyoryu]

I´m not moving the goal posts. I claim that you can do all people, all the time. You "just" need the skill-set and mentality of a good conman or grifter (ready for a long con)

That's a good description.

And as good of a reason as any to not use illusionism.

[Segev]

I'd argue that conmen fool some of the people, some of the time. Their whole thing is that they are fooling that person or small group, for just long enough to pull off the con. It's great if it's never discovered, but they do the conning and then leave, so they're not actively fooling anymore.

[RazorChain]

Ignoring the small smaple size, how do you actually know that none of these ~10 players did see through it ? Did you ask them ?

Ok this bears a little bit of explaining. Usually I run games where NPC's just have agendas and the PC's have their agendas and things collide, stuff happens and dealing with consequences ensues.

So I decided to start at wrong end and have at end scene I wanted to achieve. The adventure I ran for those 2 groups was about power struggle between 3 individuals, the Duke's son, the brother and the spymaster who was using the daughter for legimacy.

So the end scene was that the players should eventually back the Duke's son and during a "mexican standoff" in the throne room they would throw the Son off the high balcony to his death on the marble floor 6 meters below.

The PC's are saved from jail by the Spymaster who is using the payers as wildcards in his political machinations, they start working for him and things start to happen. They get into contact with the other 2 in the powerstruggle and get chance to turn sides. In both games the players became double agents working for the Son, even though the spymaster saved them from execution. The intro of the adventure was kinda; tell me why you are in jail waiting for your execution.

So why did they switch sides and start working for the son? He promised them better reward and he had stronger legimacy! Then I just gently guided them to the end scene in the throne room where the son confronted the brother and the spymaster having the upper hand standing on the balcony with crossbowmen. Conveniently the Son was standing next to the PC I thought was most likely to throw him off the balcony when it was revealed that he had been taking liberty in his nightly visits to his sisters' bedroom. Splat he gets thrown off the balcony. I have my dice set (always use the same one) on hit location brain behind my GM screen. I roll different dice, exclaim and lift my GM screen and show the players the result. High fives ensues and the player is allowed to roll damage roll which is enough to kill the poor Son.

First group: True veteran roleplayers some of which I have been playing with more than 25 years: Collective experience between 180-200 years of roleplaying. 2 of them are experienced game masters.
This group I know so well that I know what buttons to push and I can predict them pretty easily in almost all situations. I knew excactly what players will always be a goody two shoes and would react the strongest when it was revealed that the Son had been abusing his sister.

Second group: Noob roleplayers. First adventure I ran for them. Collective experience 3 years or so. 2 of them have some game master experience. This group I didn't know that well so it was harder to push their buttons but much easier to use suggestions both through skill rolls and NPC's. I placed the Son besides the player I thought would react the strongest and she delivered....She wanted to fetch the son and drop him off the balcony again...just for good measure.

I discussed the adventure with both groups and both liked how open and sandboxy it was with multiple choices on which candidate to back. Both groups were happy about themselves and thought they were really clever about becoming double agents because they felt that they had instigated it themselves. Both groups drag up the scene where one of the PC's threw the son of the balcony, it's often used as an anecdote on not kill your ally suddenly. So it appear to me that neither group realizes that I had engineered the adventure in the sense to see if you can plan for an exact ending you like and make the players think that they had full agency and it was their choices that lead them there.

[RazorChain]

That's a good description.

And as good of a reason as any to not use illusionism.

Illusionism is just a tool, just like some folk hate quantum ogres and illusionism others may be fine with it, but majority of players have no effing clue. They really don't care how I weave my magic as long as they have fun.

Like my one in my "noob" group asked: "Can we go anywhere? what if we go there? or there." I answered that they could go anywhere and do whatever. And then they "collect" plot hooks like they are sidequests in a computer game and run around in circles when they realize they can't finish them all.

But illusionism isn't required unless you want to raildroad heavily and want to hide it, so it doesn't have much merit for me most of the time. Quantum ogres is one tool used in illusionism and maybe the tool I use most. Then we have narrative causality (Max isn't going to like that one): **** happens to you because you are the protagonists IME most players are just happy to follow the breadcrumbs....some get unhappy when they don't find any breadcrumbs and some groups you have to throw them a whole breadbasket.

[Max_Killjoy]

Huh, offer them a choice where all the arrows point one way (the son pays more AND he's got a stronger claim), see 2 of 2 groups take that direction... yeah, that's not really much of a test.

Always contrive things to make sure the player or PC most likely to react the way YOU want "just happens" to be standing where it's most conducive... yeah, again, not much of a test.

[RazorChain]

Huh, offer them a choice where all the arrows point one way (the son pays more AND he's got a stronger claim), see 2 of 2 groups take that direction... yeah, that's not really much of a test.

Always contrive things to make sure the player or PC most likely to react the way YOU want "just happens" to be standing where it's most conducive... yeah, again, not much of a test.

That is what illusionism is about. You are taking away their choices or making sure they take your choices. I'm not going into sublimal messaging, putting up hidden messages in our gaming room, way too much work. If you have 3 choices then you reward them for taking the choice you want them to take. If you want them to do something then you give them an incentive for doing that action.

Of course the arrows point the way you want them to go, that's the point of the excercice. If you go west you get nothing but if you go east you get 1000 bucks. You still have a choice.

[Darth Ultron]

People who think they're the best at fooling others tend to just be the best at fooling themselves.

One who can fool themselves, can fool anyone.

So far, your logic, such as it is, has been, "Games are not real life, therefore anything that isn't the DM leading players by the nose is a random mess."

I don't type that at all, that is just what people read.

D&D is not real, it's a game, and as such it's artificial and must be made and maintained by single person:The DM. The DM makes and controls the whole game world setting, other then the handful of PCs. And while this is 100% true, and even the rule books say this, people will ''disagree'', but whatever.

And part of making everything, is making ''something'' for the players to do; or to otherwise put it: make an adventure. Yes, everyone can say again and again that if the players really want to be nitpicky they can make a overly big deal about what they want to do. But that does not even matter. The DM still is the one making the Adventure.

And making the Adventure, is making paths for the characters to go down. There has to be something ''there'' or it's just a blank. Again, unless the DM creates something in the game, it simply does not exist. An average DM makes only a path or two, and then is so surprised and shocked when the players do something ''wacky'' like sneak in the back door to a building(because the average DM could not conceive of any building ever built ever that has a 'door in the back'.) But, yet again, this really does not matter. The players can be all happy and high five as they ''surprised'' the DM, but the DM will only be surprised for a second or two...and then make the ''new'' path.

None of this is ''leading'' the players by some type of negative force.

The Improv Ogre way, where the DM makes very little of anything, and just sits back and waits to react to the players IS random. How could it not be. Other then the small handful of things the DM might have made, the whole game world is a blank. So the PCs can go a direction, and the DM can, randomly, make whatever they want to be there on a whim. The DM's setting details say ''Darkwood has trees in it'', so if the PCs randomly go there for no reason, the DM has to make up stuff randomly.

That is what illusionism is about. You are taking away their choices or making sure they take your choices.

That is way to negative of a description. Illusionism is about a person who, willing or not, just does not see the reality of something. Plenty of people think TV shows are real, even more so reality TV shows as they do have the word 'reality' in them. The truth is: TV shows are fake. The vast majority of everything is at least 'altered', if not fake. Some people do know about the reality of things, but choose to not see things as they are.

And this is true for a TRPG too: It's fake. Cool, fun, interesting, exciting things will ''just happen'' to the PCs all the time. This is all fake, but then it is the point of the game. Most gamers just choose to ''forget'' or at least ''not think'' of such things. But some, mostly players, don't even choose not to see things: they really don't see things. They are not ''forgetting'' or ''not thinking'' about it, they really ''don't know'' or ''don't realize''. So, when anything happens in the game, that is all ways fake, artificial, and not real......will think that everything that happens IS real. Illusionism.

[Satinavian]

I discussed the adventure with both groups and both liked how open and sandboxy it was with multiple choices on which candidate to back. Both groups were happy about themselves and thought they were really clever about becoming double agents because they felt that they had instigated it themselves. Both groups drag up the scene where one of the PC's threw the son of the balcony, it's often used as an anecdote on not kill your ally suddenly. So it appear to me that neither group realizes that I had engineered the adventure in the sense to see if you can plan for an exact ending you like and make the players think that they had full agency and it was their choices that lead them there.

Ok, that is convincing enough for me. Seems you really fooled those two groups.

[RazorChain]

Ok, that is convincing enough for me. Seems you really fooled those two groups.

But then again how often do you sit down at the gaming table thinking that the GM is going to try to manipulate you and treat you like a rat in a maze. I won't say I fooled them but I sure manipulated them and managed to steer the game into the direction I planned in a Pavlovian sort of a way and by predicting what they would do at every given situation and planning accordingly. Was it fun? Yes and no, I felt triumph that I managed to pull it off but one of the things I like about RPGs is the improvisation and this just felt a bit like a staged script. It is widely accepted that the GM even might fudge some rolls (for your benefit hopefully or for dramatic purposes). Then you have the worse type of GM when you tell them "My character is immune to poisons!" GM: "Yeah...this is as special type of poison and you aren't immune to it" So I guess there are worse things like just curb stomping your agency right in front of you.

Last time I played I was playing Rise of Tiamat I think and the GM wasn't even pretending "You going to talk to the Dwarves or the Orcs?" Not even a neutral question like "What will you do next?". We the players had agreed on trying out D&D 5e and the GM proposed the module. In that case I think we even might have been happier about a little bit of illusionism, thinking we were coming up with the ideas of what we were going to do next.

[RazorChain]

That is way to negative of a description. Illusionism is about a person who, willing or not, just does not see the reality of something. Plenty of people think TV shows are real, even more so reality TV shows as they do have the word 'reality' in them. The truth is: TV shows are fake. The vast majority of everything is at least 'altered', if not fake. Some people do know about the reality of things, but choose to not see things as they are.

And this is true for a TRPG too: It's fake. Cool, fun, interesting, exciting things will ''just happen'' to the PCs all the time. This is all fake, but then it is the point of the game. Most gamers just choose to ''forget'' or at least ''not think'' of such things. But some, mostly players, don't even choose not to see things: they really don't see things. They are not ''forgetting'' or ''not thinking'' about it, they really ''don't know'' or ''don't realize''. So, when anything happens in the game, that is all ways fake, artificial, and not real......will think that everything that happens IS real. Illusionism.

I thought that was immersion? Like the NPC's aren't real but the players become attached to them and their own characters and the setting and you are like "Fools, nothing of this is real, it's all in your head" and when they fail a roll you go "The thief Blackleaf, did not find the poison trap and I declare her dead. I will not tolerate failure, you'd be wise not to fail me again" and then when they lose their character they will be like "NO! Not Blackleaf! NO NO I'm going to die"

Yep pretty sure that one was immersion.

[Florian]

That's a good description.

And as good of a reason as any to not use illusionism.

It´s a tool set. And like with any tool, it comes with the added questions/decisions of why, how, intensity, frequency and basic intend.

I´m a working adult, so "hobby time" is a precious thing and I don't want to waste that. At most, I can have two four hour "slots" after work each week and that's it. So I don't shy away from using it when the game stalls, reaches a lull or the overall action stops moving forward.

@RazorChain:

Jein (german compound word for simultaneously yes and no). We play a game and the whole content is geared towards catering to the accepted style - like a "heroic" game needing and supporting "heroes" or the "drama game" needing said "drama". Neither the characters nor the setting exist or matter at any point, even if you're into a "Sim character" game. It gets absurd when you, as a player, sign up for an "adventure game" and create and "immerse" into a character that is not interested or actively against going for the intended game for "in universes" reasons.

[Satinavian]

But then again how often do you sit down at the gaming table thinking that the GM is going to try to manipulate you and treat you like a rat in a maze.

Basically every session several times ? Do you think i don't notice if stuff happens that somehow perfectly fits some PCs skills/backstories/whatever ? If the GM knows which buttons to press, all the other players know and recognize those buttons probably as well. That i don't see if events happen not randomly but to the PC who has had not enough spotlight yet/whose player seems bored ? If the plot critical task suddenly succeeds even on a low roll/for some strange reason doesn't require a roll this time ? If, after a group decided that a plan was too risky suddenly events happen that make that same task a tad easier ? If enemy combatants employ better/worse tactics depending on how the combat went so far ?

Yes, some things are not always obvious. Fudging rolls obviously takes time to notice. But even that is not as easy as it might seem, especially if the GM is not particularly well-versed in statistics.

But here is where Participationism comes in. I don't feel like a rat in a maze as long as i have enough freedom to decide the things i care for. And if it doesn't get in the way of my immersion. Different games have different things that are accepted but in a working group players and GM usually share a feeling of the boundaries.

[Max_Killjoy]

I thought that was immersion? Like the NPC's aren't real but the players become attached to them and their own characters and the setting and you are like "Fools, nothing of this is real, it's all in your head" and when they fail a roll you go "The thief Blackleaf, did not find the poison trap and I declare her dead. I will not tolerate failure, you'd be wise not to fail me again" and then when they lose their character they will be like "NO! Not Blackleaf! NO NO I'm going to die"

Yep pretty sure that one was immersion.

Wouldn't be the first time the DU conflated "illusionism" with "immersion".

[Florian]

Basically every session several times ?

Oh boy, DSA-style horror stories that try to "balance" a sugar baker and an academy wizard never work out because they're so heavy-handed and you're forced to show what you do pretty much in the open. I wouldn't even know why you should try to impose some kind of balance when there is non.

Wouldn't be the first time the DU conflated "illusionism" with "immersion".

And it´s still not uninteresting. "Immersion" and "participation" already are a bit of in odds at the best of days....

[Max_Killjoy]

Jein (german compound word for simultaneously yes and no). We play a game and the whole content is geared towards catering to the accepted style - like a "heroic" game needing and supporting "heroes" or the "drama game" needing said "drama". Neither the characters nor the setting exist or matter at any point, even if you're into a "Sim character" game. It gets absurd when you, as a player, sign up for an "adventure game" and create and "immerse" into a character that is not interested or actively against going for the intended game for "in universes" reasons.

There are two sides to this.

On one side, it's up to everyone at the table to communicate beforehand exactly what sort of game they're all signing up for (GM, other players, doesn't matter), and come to some agreements. Showing up with a character who won't engage after that discussion isn't some sort of deep gaming theory issue, it's just bad form.

On the other side, there's no reason to force the same exact focus and level of focus on every PC. I've both run and played in campaigns wherein the focus varied between the PCs, and everyone had fun, and it worked out great. The player who didn't want to deal with romantic drama never had it come up for his PC, for example.

[RazorChain]

Basically every session several times ? Do you think i don't notice if stuff happens that somehow perfectly fits some PCs skills/backstories/whatever ? If the GM knows which buttons to press, all the other players know and recognize those buttons probably as well. That i don't see if events happen not randomly but to the PC who has had not enough spotlight yet/whose player seems bored ? If the plot critical task suddenly succeeds even on a low roll/for some strange reason doesn't require a roll this time ? If, after a group decided that a plan was too risky suddenly events happen that make that same task a tad easier ? If enemy combatants employ better/worse tactics depending on how the combat went so far ?

Yes, some things are not always obvious. Fudging rolls obviously takes time to notice. But even that is not as easy as it might seem, especially if the GM is not particularly well-versed in statistics.

But here is where Participationism comes in. I don't feel like a rat in a maze as long as i have enough freedom to decide the things i care for. And if it doesn't get in the way of my immersion. Different games have different things that are accepted but in a working group players and GM usually share a feeling of the boundaries.

Oh dear...your GM's might benefit from lessons in some illusionism.
With a good GM you won't recognize these things because he doesn't employ them.

Stuff that perfectly fits Backstories are almost unavoidable but that's narrative causality for you, Max_Killjoy is expert on avoiding that so he might have some tips. I usually make my campaign revolve around the characters and their backstories, let's say it's more of a personal journey. But making things not feel contrived is better...not everyone has Darth Vader as their father.

Skill rolls I usually just let come naturally and isn't a problem as each character has more than couple of dozen skills.

Some buttons everyone recognizes but hey people aren't prone to self reflection. But take the PC's stuff away from them and they will go crazy and chase it down feverishly. Usually if a NPC does something bad to a PC he will get it back tendfold....RPG's are kinda revenge fantasies where you can slip your inner demons free

As for spotlight, I usually go for narrative spotlight where everybody knows beforehand that the spotlight is going to be on couple of characters, this I do to make sure that the players show up, or schedule so that the "spotlight player" can make it.

I almost always give the players the target number before they roll or in contested rolls tell them how much they must succeed their roll with before they roll. 90% of my rolls are made in front of the players as we use for example battle mats and I tell them what I need to hit them or what the the bad guy has to roll to defend against them.

[Cluedrew]

Jein (german compound word for simultaneously yes and no).

You know I'm not fluent in German, but I think I like this word.

[RazorChain]

You know I'm not fluent in German, but I think I like this word.

We have the similar expression in icelandic which is Nja (cross between Nei and Ja)

[Darth Ultron]

I thought that was immersion?

They are related.

Illusionism-is not thinking about metagame and letting it effect the game play. At best, the players do this willingly to have fun; at worse the players are just clueless.

Immersion-is getting into the game. It's where your really role playing a character in the game world, and your not just a player playing a character in a game.

[Satinavian]

Oh dear...your GM's might benefit from lessons in some illusionism.
With a good GM you won't recognize these things because he doesn't employ them.

What ?

If i notice stuff it must be that my GMs are not skillfull enough ? Alll of them over many many years ? It is not just possible and far more plausible that Illusionism is freaking hard and pretty much never works ?

And you actually think that taking the PCs stuff is a subtle move ? That one is so heavy handed that most GMs simply shy away from employing it.

Some buttons everyone recognizes but hey people aren't prone to self reflection.

If one player notices how the GM tries to manipulate another player that is enough. No self-reflection required. And yes players usually know each other on average as well as the GM does.

They are related.

Illusionism-is not thinking about metagame and letting it effect the game play. At best, the players do this willingly to have fun; at worse the players are just clueless.

Immersion-is getting into the game. It's where your really role playing a character in the game world, and your not just a player playing a character in a game.

No.

Illusionism is the DM trying to cheat the players out of options to make their characters act like he wishes.

Immersion is the players trying to take the stance of their character in the game world and acting accordingly.

Both have next to nothing to do with each other. If your players are interested in immersion, they are even at odds most of the time as the things the GM introduces to guide the PCs tend to seem less plausible from a game world perspective and the actions the GM tries to prevent to keep to the plot are what PC-motivated already.

[Florian]

That one is so heavy handed that most GMs simply shy away from employing it.

As I said earlier, it takes some serious practice to get it right. People are really good at noticing inconsistencies, especially when the same group is playing together for a while now (ex: When it´s your normal style to have the characters go out adventuring and you suddenly have the adventure come to them). If you want to use (heavy-handed) force methods, it´s best to establish that early and start using them for no other reason than to get your group used to them and to gauge how far you can take it. Same with general illusionism tools and tactic, start using them early on, even when there's no need to, to establish a consistent gaming style and have your players trust you. (ex: When you are one of the gms that has a problem with flying, establish early on and keep mentioning it that freak weather exists and sandstorms will flense anything flying that's not a dragon, then start using those sandstorms frequently so no one will think there's something amiss when you actually use one to shut down flying later on when you need it).

Personally, I try to avoid creating plots that are so narrow or need a specific string of actions to happen in order to work, as much as I try to avoid narrative considerations (acts, climax and such) or, *shudder*, trying to tell an epic, so I don't need to use Illusionism in the first place. Still got to hone your skills, tho.

Illusionism-is not thinking about metagame and letting it effect the game play. At best, the players do this willingly to have fun; at worse the players are just clueless.

Immersion-is getting into the game. It's where your really role playing a character in the game world, and your not just a player playing a character in a game.

Illusionism is about creating the illusion of choices and/or covering up that you've just taken away the option to chose. It´s the Quantum Ogre that happens on both path A and B as well as the heavy sandstorm that prevents flying and forces you to walk one of the paths on foot.

[RazorChain]

What ?

If i notice stuff it must be that my GMs are not skillfull enough ? Alll of them over many many years ? It is not just possible and far more plausible that Illusionism is freaking hard and pretty much never works ?

And you actually think that taking the PCs stuff is a subtle move ? That one is so heavy handed that most GMs simply shy away from employing it.

If one player notices how the GM tries to manipulate another player that is enough. No self-reflection required. And yes players usually know each other on average as well as the GM does.

No what I'm saying is many GM's aren't subtle or upfront about things, taking things from the PC's is the usual button GM's push or murder your friends and family from your backstory just to evoke hate. Or your lost father is the villain.

You know they are fudging either for your benefit or the benefit of the game....that is for the bad guys because they miscalculated the strength of the party and don't like it when their villain is getting splattered.

If you are noticing a lot of GMs "tricks" and they are jarring and contrived then the GM has to learn to become more subtle and illusionism is just about that, hiding your tricks.

I hate "blatant" GMing. I hate it when the villain makes all their resistance rolls/saves and you know that the flustered GM is fudging his rolls because my monk decided to go all out on his stuns because it's the only thing my monk is good for. That is the GM invalidating my character choices, just like when everybody and their mother targets your character because he's the mage even though he's dressed like everyone else.

I hate it when the GM force you to meet the mayor "No the gates are closed and you can't leave and the guards escort you to the mayor". Instead of introducing the hook differently "Rogar, you remember the mayor from last time you visited town....or at least his daughter whose skirt you were chasing a couple a years ago when you passed through with your mercenary company. A red haired vixen that didn't give in to your charms."

Or the GM can be up front and just say "hey guys this is the only thing I have prepared"


If illusionism teaches anything it is subtle approaches to many of the obstacles or hurdles that the GM meets. Yes many of them are manipulative but for me they are preferable to heavy handedness if I so choose to employ them as they usually present the PC's with a choice and you are just stacking the odds in the favor of them taking the option you want them to.