The Art of Illusionism or what your players don't know won't hurt them

[Max_Killjoy]

Can you give an example or few? This seems an extraordinary claim to me.

1) Situations where there probably shouldn't have been a roll in the first place, and you were moving along quickly and didn't think about it, and then realized how ridiculous it would be for the character to fail in that situation.

2) Situations where an extreme result is possible mechanically but makes no sense "in fiction" -- most systems have odd corners and edges that aren't always clearly visible until the dice come up.

Generally, situations where not being a perfect GMing paragon leads to a roll outcome that makes no damn sense, and you can either fudge a bit behind the scenes, try to improv something that makes sense of the roll without contradicting it, or let the game come to a screeching halt because you're a slave to the dice/rules.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Lying is a fundamental part of the DM skillset. Feigning surprise when a player does something you knew all along they were going to do, fudging the odd dice roll, hell, even pretending you had prepared for something when the party have left your prepared material hours ago, and you've been winging it ever since. And a player shouldn't be surprised that a DM tells the odd lie - I'm sure you could DM with complete 100% honesty, but then you would likely get a reputation as a killer DM, and be constantly breaking the atmosphere with things like:

I find all of these examples bizarre and wonder why anyone would ever do them.

I mean... ouch. That has put a foot fully through the fourth wall and torched any immersion the players had, THAT is something that would make me question the DM's ability, not telling a few lies to keep the game flowing.

And found the given example an entirely reasonable thing to do.

There's this weird perception certain people have that think GMs are supposed to be projecting this aura of infallible confidence, or something. And I think it's really dumb.

[Pleh]

Can you give an example or few? This seems an extraordinary claim to me.

Yes, the point of rolling dice in favor of verisimilitude is to leave a few aspects of the game to chance just as it is in real life.

The place where chance hurts verisimilitude is where the chances for success and failure (either by their existence or by their disproportion) strain our suspension of disbelief.

[Friv]

So, I know it's a tangent, but I have called against die rolls in the past. I've just done it openly.

I definitely had a scene in which so many failures got rolled in a row that I said, "Okay, this is ridiculous, all of your failures to date stand but this roll you're making now just succeeds, don't roll it." I have had a scene in which, after a roll produced a nonsense result, I said, "Um.... that's a nonsense result. Let's dial it to the closest result that makes any kind of sense."

It's been a long time since I've flat-out ignored a result, though. Maybe I've just gotten better at not rolling when I already know what I want to happen?

[Max_Killjoy]

There's this weird perception certain people have that think GMs are supposed to be projecting this aura of infallible confidence, or something. And I think it's really dumb.

At least based on my experience, I think most players are going to be far more appreciative of a GM who is clearly doing their best, being honest about the game, and is more concerned with giving them the best game possible rather than grasping at "power" and "authority".

[kyoryu]

I can't believe noone linked to this very accurate flowchart yet:

Spoiler

Show

That. Is. Brilliant.

From time to time, occasionally, you have to fudge the dice to avoid harming verisimilitude -- "rule of cool" doesn't even have to come into it.

That's a prime example of system/expectation mismatch.

I generally prefer systems that don't tell me *what* happens, they put constraints on what can happen. That way, I don't need to fudge!

[PhoenixPhyre]

At least based on my experience, I think most players are going to be far more appreciative of a GM who is clearly doing their best, being honest about the game, and is more concerned with giving them the best game possible rather than grasping at "power" and "authority".

I strongly agree. I'd much rather a DM tell me flat out that only one route forward is possible and let me figure out why my character is ok with that. Wasting everyone's time with invisible walls or BS reasons why that's not possible (that make things much less consistent going forward) is not OK.

In fact, the best way I've found to DM is something like active participationism--

Enlist the players (not the characters) in the effort to keep the game moving forward. Once they have bought in, they'll help keep things going--figure out reasons their characters want to be there and want to do that thing. More heads are better than one. This also promotes immersion--then everyone's on the same page with the same image. I've had players spend entire sessions OOC, nailing down exactly what their choice would be--what choice they want and what choice their characters would be willing to make. I've had players suggest reasons why a particular thing is the way it is that were much better than my reasons. This does require trusting the players though, and the players trusting the DM.

I tend to do this to shape short arcs (3-5 sessions)--they choose what the focus of the next arc is (sometimes freely, sometimes from constrained choices), and then play along as we explore that arc, suggesting ways to make it better. This iterative process makes for a game that's both less work to prepare and much more fun to run, because everyone's in on it and working together to make it fun and immersive.

[CharonsHelper]

I can't believe noone linked to this very accurate flowchart yet:

Spoiler

Show

That's awesome.

By those 3 options - I generally run a mix of sandbox & participationism. (I don't consider them mutually exclusive.)

I do problems for the PCs to solve but the PCs choose how to tackle them, and the PCs could ignore the hooks if they really wanted. My big thing is that I have them make big decisions at the end of the session so that I have time to plan it out (I'm mediocre at total improv).

[PhoenixPhyre]

My big thing is that I have them make big decisions at the end of the session so that I have time to plan it out (I'm mediocre at total improv).

That's something I started doing when we come to the end of an arc--lay out some options and get them to decide where they want to go and what they want to do next. It helps a lot. Gives me a week (at least) to get started with the flow of the arc. Within an arc they're pretty good at finding rails to follow, even if I didn't place them there.

[kyoryu]

I do problems for the PCs to solve but the PCs choose how to tackle them, and the PCs could ignore the hooks if they really wanted. My big thing is that I have them make big decisions at the end of the session so that I have time to plan it out (I'm mediocre at total improv).

Yeah, it's not perfect. Most games will have some switching between at least two of the styles, and a few of the differentiating questions aren't what I'd make them. For instance, in most of the games I run the Big Problem is imposed by me, but how the players do it is up to them. So, since it's not self-motivated goals, it's not Story-Now according to the chart, but the descriptions of Sandbox don't really match up either. (Which, now that I read it again, sounds closer to what you do than most things, except I run more improv).

That said, those are minor issues compared to the overall brilliance.

[Pleh]

Enlist the players (not the characters) in the effort to keep the game moving forward.

What? But how can players know what comes next in my story? And if they add stuff to the story, then it won't be the awesome, special thing I have in mind.
Why can't they just sit back and enjoy feeling like they are telling a story while they listen to my spectacular ideas?

[RazorChain]

So, I know it's a tangent, but I have called against die rolls in the past. I've just done it openly.

I definitely had a scene in which so many failures got rolled in a row that I said, "Okay, this is ridiculous, all of your failures to date stand but this roll you're making now just succeeds, don't roll it." I have had a scene in which, after a roll produced a nonsense result, I said, "Um.... that's a nonsense result. Let's dial it to the closest result that makes any kind of sense."

It's been a long time since I've flat-out ignored a result, though. Maybe I've just gotten better at not rolling when I already know what I want to happen?

This might be a situations where no roll is needed. Say yes or roll a die. When you ask a player to roll a die you are essentially saying no to his action to succeed but he get's to roll for it. In diceless roleplaying you might just ask the player if his character succeed at the task.

[Frozen_Feet]

Can you give an example of [fudging to preserve verisimilitude]? This seems an extraordinary claim to me.

A more concrete example of this: several games have poorly thought out crit tables. A crit might sever a limb, but the rules leave it undefined what happens if the same crit is rolled again. In such a case, the GM obviously has to modify the roll or its result.

I've also fudged rolls for some of the crazier effects of the Summon spell in LotFP, when I realized mid-process that it will take too long and disrupt the game if I resolve it strictly by the book.

[kyoryu]

This might be a situations where no roll is needed. Say yes or roll a die. When you ask a player to roll a die you are essentially saying no to his action to succeed but he get's to roll for it.

What? That doesn't make sense. You're saying "there's a chance, but it's not guaranteed," not "no, but I'll let you roll because I like the sound dice make."

"Say yes or roll a die" is best understood assuming good faith on the part of all involved, and makes the presumption that the player in that situation believes that his character could do the thing in good faith. And if the player belives that, then most of the time you should accept that unless you know there's some reason that it's not actually possible.

In diceless roleplaying you might just ask the player if his character succeed at the task.

That's not how diceless roleplaying works (at least in the major example, starting with Amber).

[PhoenixPhyre]

A more concrete example of this: several games have poorly thought out crit tables. A crit might sever a limb, but the rules leave it undefined what happens if the same crit is rolled again. In such a case, the GM obviously has to modify the roll or its result.

I've also fudged rolls for some of the crazier effects of the Summon spell in LotFP, when I realized mid-process that it will take too long and disrupt the game if I resolve it strictly by the book.

I've seen it for those, or for correcting a mistake on my part (especially where really no roll would be needed but I missed part of the context that made that clear).

I've had cases where I called for the roll/made the roll too early (before my mind caught up with me) and what I was rolling for was really a foregone conclusion (in either direction). I've bodged the numbers (not the dice, particularly, but the defenses/health of a monster) where the original design was pants-on-head (I misread something) or to be consistent with what I had told another person. For example, I told someone that they hit when they shouldn't have (because I did the math wrong and they were off by one). From then on, that monster had 1 lower AC than their printed value (to be consistent for the rest of the party).

Edit: Or for loot tables. I'll over-ride those constantly if it gives stupid stuff. But those are usually rerolls until it looks decent.

In keeping with my love of honesty in DMs, when I make a mistake like that I try to mention it (after the session if not sooner) and admit my mistake. Everyone screws up. But it irritates me strongly if someone refuses to admit fault or take responsibility for screwing up.

[Scripten]

As an anecdote, I made a pretty significant mistake with a D&D 5E combat encounter several weeks ago. I had put together a bunch of monsters which (I thought) conferred the Incapacitated status effect onto anyone grappled by them. The combat ended up being much harder than usual, but it was tense and exciting and made the players pull out every stop to survive. Near the end of the combat, I checked the monster stats and noticed that they only caused players to be Restrained, which is far less debilitating.

I could have kept up the illusion, because it ultimately made the combat better, but I instead told the players that I'd messed up and apologized. We then continued the combat. Telling the truth didn't pull the players out of their immersion, nor would they have appreciated finding out later that I had inadvertently cheated them.

[RazorChain]

What? That doesn't make sense. You're saying "there's a chance, but it's not guaranteed," not "no, but I'll let you roll because I like the sound dice make."

"Say yes or roll a die" is best understood assuming good faith on the part of all involved, and makes the presumption that the player in that situation believes that his character could do the thing in good faith. And if the player belives that, then most of the time you should accept that unless you know there's some reason that it's not actually possible.

I'm not saying no I like the sound of dice. I'm saying no unless you make your roll. I could say yes unless you fail your roll, but to put it in improv terms I consider it a block, you are blocking the flow until it can be resolved with a die roll.

That's not how diceless roleplaying works (at least in the major example, starting with Amber).

Amber doesnt always know what it makes of it. If you have 60 points in warfare you are better than Brand but worse than Benedict but doesnt quite explain how good you are compared to the rest of the multiverse. Will Benedict armed only with a rock defeat a giant Mecha? Depends mostly on how the scene is narrated.

In Theatrix you might just ask the player if his character succeeds or not because there are no stats and the player might narrate his success or failure.

[NichG]

The honesty thing is misleading here, I think. In terms of what honesty means for interpersonal relationships, an actor playing a part isn't being dishonest for trying to play it convincingly, and if they give a very vivid performance of pain, anguish, or death, it's not helpful for them to drop OOC and say 'don't worry, this is just part of the act'.

The example of 'guys, I only have 3 of 9 locations prepared, choose' is like the actor dropping character, or a player dropping OOC to explain why their character is doing something irrelevant. It's basically unnecessary, because just as the actor's job is to convincingly depict a character, in that situation the GM's job is to convincingly depict a world.

They could have just said e.g.: 'scouts have reported three locations so far which seem to still be intact'. The GM doesn't have to tell the players that they originally intended for there to be 9 - that information only exists within the GM's head, is within the bounds of scenario design that is explicitly their job, and has no bearing on player agency (characters are not taking actions here).

If the players go to location 4, the GM can then decide 'it's rubble' and the scouts will not later report it standing, or can improv, or can ask for time at that point ('yeah, there would be something here, give me a bit').

Now, there can be reasons why a GM would want to share this process - there are other people in the group interested in GMing and this is the equivalent of talking shop, the timing is such that ending the session and generating the rest would be reasonable and the GM wants players to weigh in on that decision, etc.

But I don't think 'wanting to be honest' holds water here. There should be no ethics-based expectation that the world exposes its generation process to the players, even if it's fine if that's a table preference.

Where it does become about honesty in the social sense would be if, when asked OOC, the GM lies about something rather than just choosing not to answer. And in that case, I'd generally support the stance of tell the truth or say nothing. But say nothing should be an acceptable answer - "I'm not going to tell you the villain's motives, find out in character", "I'm not going to tell you what stuff was prep or improv because I think it would diminish the game", etc. If a player says 'tell me or I leave', better to let them leave than to lie in that case.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Counter point: DM ing is not acting, players aren't an audience. Staying "in character" isn't that important. Being able to trust each other is. As is having a clear, shared understanding of the situation. Locking important details in one person's mind hurts the shared mental picture, impoverishing play and hurting immersion. It also reduces agency.

In that particular case, I fully expect them to visit many, if not all of those locations. If I said only 3 were standing, that's a continuity error when later they go there. If they had ignored my request, I would have let them go there with the warning that it was going to be improvised and likely unbalanced.

Instead, I treat my players as equals and ask for cooperation instead of lying about the state of the world. I'm fine with characters lying to characters. Real people shouldn't lie to real people.

Not all silence is deception either, so staying silent (about motives, traps, or other things that require surprise to be effective) is expected behavior, not deception.

[NichG]

Counter point: DM ing is not acting, players aren't an audience. Staying "in character" isn't that important. Being able to trust each other is. As is having a clear, shared understanding of the situation. Locking important details in one person's mind hurts the shared mental picture, impoverishing play and hurting immersion. It also reduces agency.

In that particular case, I fully expect them to visit many, if not all of those locations. If I said only 3 were standing, that's a continuity error when later they go there. If they had ignored my request, I would have let them go there with the warning that it was going to be improvised and likely unbalanced.

Instead, I treat my players as equals and ask for cooperation instead of lying about the state of the world. I'm fine with characters lying to characters. Real people shouldn't lie to real people.

Not all silence is deception either, so staying silent (about motives, traps, or other things that require surprise to be effective) is expected behavior, not deception.

What I'm arguing here is that saying that these things are matters of trust is an incorrect escalation of something that can easily be part of the gameplay and in-character layer into an out-of-character, social interaction issue. There are many game experiences and styles of play which rely extensively upon hidden information, deception, misleading cues, and faux antagonism. If you read faux antagonism as real antagonism, or the existence of hidden information in the game as an act of out-of-character aggression, then of course it can seem to be very hostile. But at the same time, it is perfectly possible for many people to play games with the understanding that all of those things are part of the game, not part of the real social interaction between people at the table.

When the GM creates a situation which deceives me, that's fair game in my eyes - it's an opportunity for me to play at trying to pierce the deception, or to experience surprise or shock in an environment where the worst possible things that could actually happen are some momentary frustration or upset. I could choose to try to make that an issue, but because I'm able to extend trust to the GM, I can experience a wider variety of games than if I felt like I had to actually be in on everything going on behind the screen.

'When should the GM come clean?' is a really complex issue, its not something so easily answered by 'honesty is good, always do it'. In a recent campaign, I've got a GM who is experimenting with improvisation and trying to become more flexible as a result. However, he's obviously not entirely comfortable with it yet and occasionally breaks and asks OOC questions about things. Although it'll help him improve to do this, every time it happens it really sucks the wind out of the sails of the game - any tension or pressure that we thought we were pushing against in character, now we know exactly where things are giving way to the metagame considerations of e.g. how excited we sound about a given plan or things like that. So there's a sort of 'why bother?' feeling that I have to fight past. If he just didn't take cues from us at all, well, we tend to push the game in very unanticipated ways and there'd likely be a lot of chaos which would be frustrating for all involved and not really all that interesting (I've been on both sides of that kind of situation). But if he took cues, threw in twists that were customized for the directions play was proceeding in, and kept mum about what stuff was planned and what stuff was off the cuff, that'd make me happiest (and hopefully, through table communication, eventually that's where he'll get).

Similarly, I've been the 'GM coming clean' about things and had it crash out people's enjoyment of the game on a couple of occasions - at one point it was a frank discussion about a numbers arms race going on between two players that was basically going to render the game mechanically sort of boring (which robbed them of the enjoyment of that arms race - something that they were actually getting a lot out of, despite being a destabilizing influence to the campaign; now, I've got a set of monster design tricks which I'll break out in those cases which expands the dynamic range). At another point it was a string of frustrating strategic scenarios where an offer to discuss the game difficulty and make adjustments left everyone feeling as though their victories were fake.

[PhoenixPhyre]

What I'm arguing here is that saying that these things are matters of trust is an incorrect escalation of something that can easily be part of the gameplay and in-character layer into an out-of-character, social interaction issue. There are many game experiences and styles of play which rely extensively upon hidden information, deception, misleading cues, and faux antagonism. If you read faux antagonism as real antagonism, or the existence of hidden information in the game as an act of out-of-character aggression, then of course it can seem to be very hostile. But at the same time, it is perfectly possible for many people to play games with the understanding that all of those things are part of the game, not part of the real social interaction between people at the table.

If you're playing a game where the DM is expected to be deceptive, that's different. There, it's part of the game. I object to being deceptive in an attempt to save face, control the game, or reduce agency. Covering up a lack of preparation with fake obstacles is purely about saving face, in my experience, and an unsuccessful one at that. Even if the players don't know what is wrong, they usually know something is wrong.

When the GM creates a situation which deceives me, that's fair game in my eyes - it's an opportunity for me to play at trying to pierce the deception, or to experience surprise or shock in an environment where the worst possible things that could actually happen are some momentary frustration or upset. I could choose to try to make that an issue, but because I'm able to extend trust to the GM, I can experience a wider variety of games than if I felt like I had to actually be in on everything going on behind the screen.

Deceptive situations are fine, as long as it's the characters that are being deceived. The players might not have all the information, but they're not being fed false information in an attempt to control their agency. The only window that the players have into the game world is through the words of the DM. Inserting false "state of the world" data (unless required by game mechanics such as illusions) into that stream corrupts the process. Again, it's a matter of expectations. I try to err on the side of giving too much information, trusting the players not to meta-game. Part of this is some bad experiences with DMs being controlling jerks by not revealing critical information that the characters would know--the characters know more than the DM can tell (because they're really there, not getting a compressed, lossy description). So more information is usually better.

'When should the GM come clean?' is a really complex issue, its not something so easily answered by 'honesty is good, always do it'. In a recent campaign, I've got a GM who is experimenting with improvisation and trying to become more flexible as a result. However, he's obviously not entirely comfortable with it yet and occasionally breaks and asks OOC questions about things. Although it'll help him improve to do this, every time it happens it really sucks the wind out of the sails of the game - any tension or pressure that we thought we were pushing against in character, now we know exactly where things are giving way to the metagame considerations of e.g. how excited we sound about a given plan or things like that. So there's a sort of 'why bother?' feeling that I have to fight past. If he just didn't take cues from us at all, well, we tend to push the game in very unanticipated ways and there'd likely be a lot of chaos which would be frustrating for all involved and not really all that interesting (I've been on both sides of that kind of situation). But if he took cues, threw in twists that were customized for the directions play was proceeding in, and kept mum about what stuff was planned and what stuff was off the cuff, that'd make me happiest (and hopefully, through table communication, eventually that's where he'll get).

This is a play-style thing. I agree that most honesty belongs after a session, but immersion really doesn't mean much to me. Most of what I do is OOC or is as narrator. There I'm talking to the players, not the characters. I'm describing what they see, what they feel, etc. And if I can paint that best by using modern terms or in other ways that "break the 4th wall", that only helps the game flow, IMX.

Similarly, I've been the 'GM coming clean' about things and had it crash out people's enjoyment of the game on a couple of occasions - at one point it was a frank discussion about a numbers arms race going on between two players that was basically going to render the game mechanically sort of boring (which robbed them of the enjoyment of that arms race - something that they were actually getting a lot out of, despite being a destabilizing influence to the campaign; now, I've got a set of monster design tricks which I'll break out in those cases which expands the dynamic range). At another point it was a string of frustrating strategic scenarios where an offer to discuss the game difficulty and make adjustments left everyone feeling as though their victories were fake.

If those two players were the only ones in the group, fine. Adjust the difficulty dynamically. But if there are others who weren't participating, letting them arms-race is the worst thing. Because it robs the others of their fun by making them useless. Fun at the expense of others is not valid fun--its selfishness and immaturity. Warping the game around those players by adjusting the range is unfair to the other players. "Git Gud Nub" ("well, they should just optimize more") is a toxic attitude, in part because many people don't find that game-play fun at all. Part of a DM's job is to police the balance, not let players warp the game around themselves. And the DM counts as a player here--if he's not having fun because the players have broken the system, that's a problem.

I don't want to make it seem like I'm saying the DM can't keep secrets--he certainly can (and must, at times). But the default should be (IMO) towards openness and mutual understanding. The players aren't the audience and the DM is not the entertainer. They're equals, albeit with asymmetric roles, in the pursuit of fun. And letting them in on the secrets where possible shares the load, reducing it from being a one-man show to having everyone participate in making awesome things happen. That's my repeated experience over many groups with differing maturity levels (I play with a lot of teenagers). All the bad times I've had were due to people acting in antagonistic ways to other players (through their characters), often with the excuse "it's what my character would do" (from players) or by concealing critical facts that the characters would know to try to manipulate the players.

[RazorChain]

What I'm arguing here is that saying that these things are matters of trust is an incorrect escalation of something that can easily be part of the gameplay and in-character layer into an out-of-character, social interaction issue. There are many game experiences and styles of play which rely extensively upon hidden information, deception, misleading cues, and faux antagonism. If you read faux antagonism as real antagonism, or the existence of hidden information in the game as an act of out-of-character aggression, then of course it can seem to be very hostile. But at the same time, it is perfectly possible for many people to play games with the understanding that all of those things are part of the game, not part of the real social interaction between people at the table.

When the GM creates a situation which deceives me, that's fair game in my eyes - it's an opportunity for me to play at trying to pierce the deception, or to experience surprise or shock in an environment where the worst possible things that could actually happen are some momentary frustration or upset. I could choose to try to make that an issue, but because I'm able to extend trust to the GM, I can experience a wider variety of games than if I felt like I had to actually be in on everything going on behind the screen.

'When should the GM come clean?' is a really complex issue, its not something so easily answered by 'honesty is good, always do it'. In a recent campaign, I've got a GM who is experimenting with improvisation and trying to become more flexible as a result. However, he's obviously not entirely comfortable with it yet and occasionally breaks and asks OOC questions about things. Although it'll help him improve to do this, every time it happens it really sucks the wind out of the sails of the game - any tension or pressure that we thought we were pushing against in character, now we know exactly where things are giving way to the metagame considerations of e.g. how excited we sound about a given plan or things like that. So there's a sort of 'why bother?' feeling that I have to fight past. If he just didn't take cues from us at all, well, we tend to push the game in very unanticipated ways and there'd likely be a lot of chaos which would be frustrating for all involved and not really all that interesting (I've been on both sides of that kind of situation). But if he took cues, threw in twists that were customized for the directions play was proceeding in, and kept mum about what stuff was planned and what stuff was off the cuff, that'd make me happiest (and hopefully, through table communication, eventually that's where he'll get).

Similarly, I've been the 'GM coming clean' about things and had it crash out people's enjoyment of the game on a couple of occasions - at one point it was a frank discussion about a numbers arms race going on between two players that was basically going to render the game mechanically sort of boring (which robbed them of the enjoyment of that arms race - something that they were actually getting a lot out of, despite being a destabilizing influence to the campaign; now, I've got a set of monster design tricks which I'll break out in those cases which expands the dynamic range). At another point it was a string of frustrating strategic scenarios where an offer to discuss the game difficulty and make adjustments left everyone feeling as though their victories were fake.

I think Pleh hit on something where he mentioned that some hold honesty sacrosanct while others hold immersion sacrosanct. I hold immersion sacrosanct, I game for an immersive experience. I don't care if the GM fudges for the benefit of the game or choice between A and B only lead to C or that the GM changes the stats of monsters in the middle of an encounters to make it more interesting, puts down plothooks right in front of the group or changes the scene.

I don't care so long as I don't know or notice, so long these things are kept behind the curtain. I look at a GM as an entertainer or an performer and the players as well, we are the performers and the audience at the same time. When the GM stops the show because he can't cope with things, made a mistake, has to retcon or explain you can't do a thing or go there because he isn't prepared this brings everything to stop and brings me out of the immersion. I value flow and immersion therefore the most important part of GMing skill for me is improvisation and the ability to create drama. What I value most in my players is the ability to immerse themselves and their ability to expose themselves to drama.

If another player character betrays my character I won't scream about deception or dishonesty EVEN if the player has been insinuating that our characters are friends OOC. I will think "well played sir!" because I'm feeling the betrayal of my character.

[Max_Killjoy]

Honesty and immersion are not somehow mutually exclusive. Illusionism is contrary to both, however.

Not all fudging is based in deceit or illusion.

I think some are taking honesty, or the preference for honesty, as meaning adherence to some sort of doctrinaire absolute based on action alone, rather than taking intent and context into consideration.

[Red Fel]

I think Pleh hit on something where he mentioned that some hold honesty sacrosanct while others hold immersion sacrosanct. I hold immersion sacrosanct, I game for an immersive experience. I don't care if the GM fudges for the benefit of the game or choice between A and B only lead to C or that the GM changes the stats of monsters in the middle of an encounters to make it more interesting, puts down plothooks right in front of the group or changes the scene.

I don't think that the two are mutually exclusive. I think it's possible to hold immersion sacrosanct, even to fudge some rolls or story beats, if the players understand and expect that this will happen for the sake of an effective and immersive story.

APs are a great example of this. An AP requires certain events to play out a certain way. So the players need to know, coming into it, that "This is an AP, you guys, so certain things are just going to have to happen. All I ask is that you come along for the ride when they do."

That's honesty. It's also immersion-building, because it's designed to build a coherent and engaging world. But when you have both, the players can stay engaged and not feel betrayed when the reins are periodically taken out of their hands.

Me, personally, I like things to be more open-ended. I love it when an unexpected die roll takes a scene - or the entire plot - in some random, unexpected direction. But I understand that some people don't like that. For people like that, I'll paraphrase Machiavelli:

Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to wield immersion over honesty or honesty over immersion? One should wish to use both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much safer to be honest than immersive.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't think that the two are mutually exclusive. I think it's possible to hold immersion sacrosanct, even to fudge some rolls or story beats, if the players understand and expect that this will happen for the sake of an effective and immersive story.

APs are a great example of this. An AP requires certain events to play out a certain way. So the players need to know, coming into it, that "This is an AP, you guys, so certain things are just going to have to happen. All I ask is that you come along for the ride when they do."

That's honesty. It's also immersion-building, because it's designed to build a coherent and engaging world. But when you have both, the players can stay engaged and not feel betrayed when the reins are periodically taken out of their hands.

Me, personally, I like things to be more open-ended. I love it when an unexpected die roll takes a scene - or the entire plot - in some random, unexpected direction. But I understand that some people don't like that. For people like that, I'll paraphrase Machiavelli:

Agreed. I like your paraphrase. I find much more immersion in honesty, honestly. Once I feel like I'm being BS'd, my ability to maintain the illusion goes way down. I don't have any problem with fudging numbers though--those aren't things the players (or the characters) would know. I do have a problem with deceptive manipulation of in-game reality, especially trying to reduce my agency for someone else's benefit. I'm allergic to Gotcha DM'ing, and deception and manipulation of reality (in-game gaslighting, in a sense) are common steps down that road in my experience.

[NichG]

If you're playing a game where the DM is expected to be deceptive, that's different. There, it's part of the game. I object to being deceptive in an attempt to save face, control the game, or reduce agency. Covering up a lack of preparation with fake obstacles is purely about saving face, in my experience, and an unsuccessful one at that. Even if the players don't know what is wrong, they usually know something is wrong.

I can agree with the first part - if the only thing at stake is the GM's ego, let it burn. But covering up lack of preparation isn't really about saving face, its about making the game run smoothly no matter what. If players perceive that certain things will take the game off the rails, they may end up carrying that around with them in their decision making process. 'I don't want to leave the prepared stuff, because it's going to tank the game/end the session', etc. If you can use techniques such as buying time, you can make that quality drop more graceful and have it be mostly in places that matter the least, and in turn actually empower players to feel better about going off the rails than if you suddenly crash out.

Doing this well means that yes, the players can still end up going where they want, and can even do it that session. That's worth a lot more than saving face.

Deceptive situations are fine, as long as it's the characters that are being deceived. The players might not have all the information, but they're not being fed false information in an attempt to control their agency. The only window that the players have into the game world is through the words of the DM. Inserting false "state of the world" data (unless required by game mechanics such as illusions) into that stream corrupts the process. Again, it's a matter of expectations. I try to err on the side of giving too much information, trusting the players not to meta-game. Part of this is some bad experiences with DMs being controlling jerks by not revealing critical information that the characters would know--the characters know more than the DM can tell (because they're really there, not getting a compressed, lossy description). So more information is usually better.

This is a play-style thing. I agree that most honesty belongs after a session, but immersion really doesn't mean much to me. Most of what I do is OOC or is as narrator. There I'm talking to the players, not the characters. I'm describing what they see, what they feel, etc. And if I can paint that best by using modern terms or in other ways that "break the 4th wall", that only helps the game flow, IMX.

If those two players were the only ones in the group, fine. Adjust the difficulty dynamically. But if there are others who weren't participating, letting them arms-race is the worst thing. Because it robs the others of their fun by making them useless. Fun at the expense of others is not valid fun--its selfishness and immaturity. Warping the game around those players by adjusting the range is unfair to the other players. "Git Gud Nub" ("well, they should just optimize more") is a toxic attitude, in part because many people don't find that game-play fun at all. Part of a DM's job is to police the balance, not let players warp the game around themselves. And the DM counts as a player here--if he's not having fun because the players have broken the system, that's a problem.

An arms race doesn't have to be a problem, but making a campaign in which an arms race can exist and the other players are still useful does tend to require a lot of the things that people are decrying here - namely, adaptive behind-the-scenes mechanisms to create the illusion that the things underlying the arms race are paying off for those characters, while in reality those things are being made less relevant relative to other things that aren't under the arms race condition. For example, someone who obtains a 100% miss chance against melee attacks is going to feel like that was worthless if everything is just throwing around fireballs or save or dies from then on. But if there's an uptick of fireballs and save or dies while at the same time there's a couple really heavy-hitting melee glass cannons who are e.g. easy to taunt, or personal duels against famous swordsmen, or things like that, then the players are more likely to feel that their cool thing is not being no-sold, while at the same time the game doesn't just devolve into 'watch them do stuff'.

Arms races are generally about quantifiable intensity, so spreading around a lot of utility powers or weird stuff can also help there. Sure, there's someone in the party who does 10k damage per hit, but now someone else in the party has the ability to cut abstract connections between things with a touch attack. The first person can one-shot the boss, the second person can separate the boss from their ambitions and redeem them, it all kind of works out. At the same time, you can do this, and you can even do it openly, but if you do it too explicitly openly then it tends to ruin the fun because now people may end up playing the metagame of e.g. 'I'd better not become too powerful or I won't get a cool thing' which tends to be more frustrating than interesting.

It's again a tricky balance point to take between openness and illusion. I generally give the caveat at the start of the campaign by describing my GM style - expect most things to be improvised, mechanics evolve during play, expect lots of strange stuff both as character options and in use by the rest of the world, and that I'm willing to run a very high power/influence level if people go for it, but that also means the game will very much become about whatever scale the players manage to reach. It's enough that people who don't like that kind of thing in the broad sense can choose not to play.

[RazorChain]

I don't think that the two are mutually exclusive. I think it's possible to hold immersion sacrosanct, even to fudge some rolls or story beats, if the players understand and expect that this will happen for the sake of an effective and immersive story.

APs are a great example of this. An AP requires certain events to play out a certain way. So the players need to know, coming into it, that "This is an AP, you guys, so certain things are just going to have to happen. All I ask is that you come along for the ride when they do."

That's honesty. It's also immersion-building, because it's designed to build a coherent and engaging world. But when you have both, the players can stay engaged and not feel betrayed when the reins are periodically taken out of their hands.

Me, personally, I like things to be more open-ended. I love it when an unexpected die roll takes a scene - or the entire plot - in some random, unexpected direction. But I understand that some people don't like that. For people like that, I'll paraphrase Machiavelli:

I agree that honesty and immersion aren't exclusive to each other in so far that honesty encompasses the absence of lying and cheating. If within the framework of the game you are allowed to lie and cheat then honesty hasn't been sacrificed. I would rather say that trust and immersion go hand in hand, my fellow players can trust that my dishonesty within the game doesn't extend outside of the game.

[kyoryu]

Agreed. I like your paraphrase. I find much more immersion in honesty, honestly. Once I feel like I'm being BS'd, my ability to maintain the illusion goes way down. I don't have any problem with fudging numbers though--those aren't things the players (or the characters) would know. I do have a problem with deceptive manipulation of in-game reality, especially trying to reduce my agency for someone else's benefit. I'm allergic to Gotcha DM'ing, and deception and manipulation of reality (in-game gaslighting, in a sense) are common steps down that road in my experience.

I think the point here is that participationism can be less immersion breaking than illusionism - if you know railroading can and will happen, and have agreed to it, it's easy to go "oh, I'm being railroaded", and get on with it and past it. Thinking in a meta way? Sure. For about three seconds.

On the other hand, if you're being illusionismed, and you suspect it, you start thinking about it with everything that happens, start trying to test it, etc. Very immersion-breaking.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think the point here is that participationism can be less immersion breaking than illusionism - if you know railroading can and will happen, and have agreed to it, it's easy to go "oh, I'm being railroaded", and get on with it and past it. Thinking in a meta way? Sure. For about three seconds.

On the other hand, if you're being illusionismed, and you suspect it, you start thinking about it with everything that happens, start trying to test it, etc. Very immersion-breaking.

And you start seeing illusions everywhere, even when they're not in use. That's why illusionism is so destructive--it breeds a cycle of self-reinforcing paranoia by just being mentioned. Getting player buy-in (participationism or just plain honesty) solves that entirely.

I'm fine with being railroaded as long as two things are true:

* I know and have consented in advance
* The things my character does are meaningful in context even if they aren't by my choice (so I'm not just an audience for the DM's uber-NPCs).

Heck, starting tomorrow I'll be playing in a 5e adventure path. Because I know there are rails and a pre-planned story, I can work to stay on them and make my character such that he wants to stay on them without having to be forced or tricked.

[Pleh]

I think the point here is that participationism can be less immersion breaking than illusionism - if you know railroading can and will happen, and have agreed to it, it's easy to go "oh, I'm being railroaded", and get on with it and past it. Thinking in a meta way? Sure. For about three seconds.

On the other hand, if you're being illusionismed, and you suspect it, you start thinking about it with everything that happens, start trying to test it, etc. Very immersion-breaking.

I think this just about wins the thread.