# "Illusionism" and "GM force" in RPGing



## pemerton (Feb 17, 2020)

These things - _illusionism_, _GM force - _are recurrent topics of conversation.

Here is a passage from The Traveller Book (1982, p 123); it is found in a description of types of scenario/adventure:

The _choreographed novel_ [my emphasis] involves a setting already thought out by the referee and presented to the players; it may be any of the above settings [ship, location or world], but contains predetermined elements. As such, the referee has already developed characters and setting which bear on the group's activities, and they are guided gently to the proper locations. Properly done, the players never know that the referee has manipulated them to a fore-ordained goal​
The "gentle guidance" and "manipulation" referred to here are exactly instances of what gets labelled _GM force_. The aspiration that the players not know about it, if it is "properly done", is exactly what gets labelled _illusionism_. (It is consistent with illusionism that the players know, in general terms, that it is going on - eg it won't be spoiled by a player having read this passage in The Traveller Book. The aspiration for player ignorance is not in respect of the general phenomenon, but rather at the point of application of GM force.)

This passage has no equivalent in the 1977 version of Classic Traveller. The fact that it appears in this early-80s version of the rules is one instance of a more general trend: the 80s saw the beginning of the idea that this sort of approach is _what it means_ to play a RPG (especially to _roleplay _rather than "rollplay"); this idea was largely consolidated in the 90s. White Wolf/Storyteller system's "Golden Rule" is the most famous statement of it.

Some people like it as an approach to RPGing. Some don't. The point of this post is to try and show, by reference to a rather canonical piece of RPG text, that it is a real thing that emerges at a particular period in the history of RPGing.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 17, 2020)

It may be useful to some to know that the "Golden Rule" is also called "Rule Zero."  Simply put, it says that if the players (usually the GM) do not like a rule, change it.

I disagree with @pemerton that the Golden Rule is the most famous statement giving permission to use Force.  I say this because a Rule Zero application can be discussed at the table, consensus on the rule change found, and the rule then be formally changed as a house rule.  This is not an application of Force.

On the other hand, if the rule is used during play, and without consensus seeking, or without annunciation, especially to cause an outcome the GM prefers, then it is Force.

In short, Rule Zero (or the Golden Rule) can be use in a non-Force way and in a Forceful way.  I will leave alone the design argument about even having it, as I don't think that's a productive argument for this thread.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 17, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 17, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> Setting up a dichotomy between OSR and the 80s editions seems like weird, false dichotomy to me that is ahistorical.
> 
> While it was much less common to have E&E (examples and explanations) in gaming manuals for OSR, it is also equally clear that both by custom and in the scant materials we do see, that "gentle guidance" was used in OSR.
> 
> ...



Thanks, I see your point about the potential ahistorical presentation.  What did you think about the main theme of the post, though?


----------



## der_kluge (Feb 17, 2020)

I once gamed with a GM who had a PhD in psychology. He had this annoying capability to present us with options which appeared to be free will, but in reality he was leading us down a very specific path. Once my friend and I figured out we were being railroaded, we tried everything in our power to derail his train, but to no avail. It was very annoying.

Like, one scene I remember, in particular, was this long hallway in a castle, and we were there to basically meet a bunch of our enemies. He described a doorway to the side which led to a kitchen area - it was the only defensible location, and of course, when the shoe dropped, we all headed to the kitchen area - the doorway of which was a portal to some other place he wanted us to go to.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 17, 2020)

der_kluge said:


> I once gamed with a GM who had a PhD in psychology. He had this annoying capability to present us with options which appeared to be free will, but in reality he was leading us down a very specific path. Once my friend and I figured out we were being railroaded, we tried everything in our power to derail his train, but to no avail. It was very annoying.
> 
> Like, one scene I remember, in particular, was this long hallway in a castle, and we were there to basically meet a bunch of our enemies. He described a doorway to the side which led to a kitchen area - it was the only defensible location, and of course, when the shoe dropped, we all headed to the kitchen area - the doorway of which was a portal to some other place he wanted us to go to.



Um, your example has nothing to do with a clever manipulation by an educated mind-doctor -- it's garden variety bait-and-switch.  Not my cuppa, goes in my personal 'bad gaming' bin.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 17, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 17, 2020)

@lowkey13 I’m curious about your use of “OSR” in your post. My understanding of the term is that it’s a modern movement, Old School Revival or Revolution or Renaissance. 

It seems you’re using it to refer to the original or early works in RPGs, especially D&D; is that right? 

I mean, it seems obvious from the context as I read on, but my initial reaction on seeing “OSR” and “ahistorical” was confusion, so I just want to make sure I’m following.


----------



## prabe (Feb 17, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> Is there a meaningful difference "Um, do you guys really want to leave the town? I don't have anything else prepared tonight ..." as opposed to skillfully finding reasons for the players to want to stay in the town?




The only meaningful difference I can see is that if you admit you're past where you feel comfortable improvising, you can call the session. I've done it.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 17, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 17, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> I don't want to derail or distract from the OP's thesis other than to note that factual disagreement. I do think that his preferred method of analysis was largely a response to some of ... for lack of a better phrase ... White Wolf excess.
> 
> I think if I was to look critically at it, the issue of what is, and isn't, DM force can vary depending on the perspective and on the table. Saying, "Let's play X module" or "Y Adventure Path" necessarily involves DM Force (with consent), and table buy in. Is there a meaningful difference "Um, do you guys really want to leave the town? I don't have anything else prepared tonight ..." as opposed to skillfully finding reasons for the players to want to stay in the town?
> 
> I don't know. Most of us are not good enough to improv an entire world, and have to rely on at least some tricks and tips (or heuristics) to compensate. To me, it is objectionable only so much as the DM is using the PCs to tell the DMs story. But others have different views.



Improv isn't required to avoid Force.  I can prep a full dungeon crawl and run it without an iota of Force.  Force is, simply put, the pushing of GM desired outcomes.  @Manbearcat had an excellent definition of it in another thread:

*Manipulation of the gamestate (typically covert) by a GM which nullifies (or in slightly more benign cases; modifies) player input in order to form or maintain a narrative that conforms to the GM's vision.* 

Illusionism is use use of Force in a way that is largely unnoticed by the players at the point of application.

If I have prepped material, and the players are playing through it, and I'm being impartial in how I adjudicate that interaction, no Force or improv is present.  Alternatively, I could play a game, like Blades in the Dark, that follows action moment to moment and builds on the current fiction in bite-sized, and therefore less daunting, chunks, and spreads the need to create around the entire table.  No Force is present there (and, indeed, Illusionism is next to impossible as any application of Force will stick out like a sore thumb).

But, yes, I agree that Force is something that is quite common, and not necessarily negative, in D&D style games.  When I run D&D, I do use Force, even as I try to limit having to do so.  So, I'm not going to tell you that Force is Teh Badness.  It's definitely something to be aware of, as it impacts play, and something that a number of very popular game systems say absolutely nothing about while being lousy with it.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 17, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> "The Old School Revival, Old School Renaissance, or simply OSR, is a movement among players of tabletop role-playing games (especially Dungeons & Dragons) that draws inspiration from the earliest days of tabletop RPGs in the 1970s."
> 
> The various rulesets and retroclones that we have today draw inspiration from the older rulesets, but the best evidence of what OSR _is_ and _was_ is not on the cleaned up clones, but in the originals.
> 
> Which is why (early) Traveler and OD&D and pre-UA 1e and B/X are (IMO) OSR. As OS as a R can be.




Okay gotcha. I know where the OSR gets its name from, I just found it odd to see it used for the original games rather than those emulating them. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone use it that way before, so I wanted to make sure there wasn’t more to it beyond your preference to use the term that way.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 17, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> "The Old School Revival, Old School Renaissance, or simply OSR, is a movement among players of tabletop role-playing games (especially Dungeons & Dragons) that draws inspiration from the earliest days of tabletop RPGs in the 1970s."
> 
> The various rulesets and retroclones that we have today draw inspiration from the older rulesets, but the best evidence of what OSR _is_ and _was_ is not on the cleaned up clones, but in the originals.
> 
> Which is why (early) Traveler and OD&D and pre-UA 1e and B/X are (IMO) OSR. As OS as a R can be.



That's an extremely idiosyncratic and confusing point of view.  It's akin to saying that turn of the century folk music is the same as jazz, because jazz was inspired, in part, by it.

Also, OSR isn't just the clones.  Those are a small subset that used the 3.x open gaming license to effectively republish the out-of-print editions as closely as possible.  OSR includes a lot of things that aren't really that close to the OS materials, while clearly inspired by them.  Torchbearer, for instance, is clearly inspired by Basic, but it's a very different beast, both under the hood and in play.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 17, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 17, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> I defined it as I use it.
> On the other hand, I have absolutely no idea why anyone would use either 3.x for OSR or ... Torchbearer?
> 
> Torchbearer is, IMO, about 590 miles away from OSR.



Yeah, you have a very idiosyncratic definition of OSR.  You might want to be aware that your personal definition is pretty different from how the term is generally used, as it may avoid confusion in the future.  I think there's a recent thread that talks about how discussions of games is often derailed because people use terms in ways that are confusing or different from other people and how that impacts discussion.  You might have seen it?


----------



## Umbran (Feb 17, 2020)

pemerton said:


> "_...the referee has already developed characters and setting which bear on the group's activities, and they are guided gently to the proper locations. Properly done, the players never know that the referee has manipulated them to a fore-ordained goal_"
> 
> The "gentle guidance" and "manipulation" referred to here are exactly instances of what gets labelled _GM force_.
> 
> ... this idea was largely consolidated in the 90s. White Wolf/Storyteller system's "Golden Rule" is the most famous statement of it.




I think in this you are... rather exceedingly incorrect here.  This is like saying that a screwdriver is the act of prying open a can of paint!

Rule Zero, and the Golden Rule are tools for the GM.  One possible use of that tool is GM Force as you define it above.  But, there are a bunch of other uses for the tool which are _NOT_ GM Force.  .

Say one of my players comes up with a character build that is abusive.  As GM, I may nerf a feat used in the build to keep the PC power balance appropriate.  This is a use of Rule Zero that is not aimed at any particular pre-ordained goal, and so is not GM Force.

Meanwhile, there are techniques a GM can use to force a given storyline or sequence of events in game that do not require adjustments of the rules, such that Rule Zero or the Golden Rule do not apply. 

Thus, I think GM Force and Rule Zero are orthogonal.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 17, 2020)

I also think this OSR argument is... orthogonal to the meat of the post.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 17, 2020)

@Ovinomancer - my understanding of the Golden Rule is that it is not just [i[if you don't like a rule, change it[/i] but rather _ignore the rules, if necessary, in the interest of the story_. It is an instruction/permission directed to the GM (ie the _players _are't being conferred permission to ignore the rules in the interests of the story).

I agree with you that prep and force are independent. Lewis Pulsipher is (was? I'm talking about stuff he weote 40 years ago) the best advocate I know of the wargaming/"skilled play" style of D&D (Gygax is the second best I know) - in his articles in early White Dwarf Pulsipher emphasises the importance of prep, in part to _avoid_ force (eg if you prep, you have an impartial answer to the action declaration _I cast Detect Magic - what glows?_).

From his wargaming perspective, Pulsipher is pretty unrestrained in his criticism of the "choregographed novel" approach to D&D. It's interesting to revisit his criticisms today in light of the emergence of that as a dominant mode of RPGing, and then a new and prominent wave of criticism from a different (Forge/non-wargaming) perspective.

I wouldn't characterise choosing a module as GM force, because it's not really guidance or manipulation - it doesn't interact with action declaration or resolution at all. On the other hand, a response to an action declaration _We go west_ of _Please don't go west, I haven't mapped that out yet _probably counts as force - I guess it's a type of adjudication of the declaration - but certainly not illusionism!

Roger Musson, who was another very thoughtful contributor to early White Dwarf who engaged with some of these issues, advocated a type of "illusionism light" for such situations - don't negat the action declaration per se, but place something there (his example is a dozen ogres holding a union meeting) that will make the players revise their decision. That sort of tactic is probably going to be obvious enough in many cases that it's not really serving an illusionist purpose but rather providing a rudimentary peg on which all the participants can hang their immersion in the shared fiction.

Here is the Gygas quote from The Strategic Reviw (2.2, Apr 1976) that @lowke13 mentioned:

[A]bsolute disinterest must be exercised by the Dungeonmaster, and if a favorite player stupidly puts himself into a situation where he is about to be killed, let the dice tell the story and KILL him. This is not to say that you should never temper chance with a bit of “Divine Intervention,” but helping players should be a rare act on the referee’s part, and the action should only be taken when fate seems to have unjustly condemned an otherwise good player, and then not in every circumstance should the referee intervene.​
To me this seems very similar to the following from p 110 of his DMG:

You do have every right to overrule the dice at any time if there is a particular course of events that you would like to have occur. In making such a decision you should never seriously harm the party or a non-player character with your actions. "ALWAYS GIVE A MONSTER AN EVEN BREAK!" , . .

Now and then a player will die through no fault of his own. He or she will have done everything correctly, taken every reasonable precaution, but still the freakish roll of the dice will kill the character. In the long run you should let such things pass as the players will kill more than one opponent with their own freakish rolls at some later time. Yet you do have the right to arbitrate the situation. You can rule that the player, instead of dying, is knocked unconscious, loses a limb, is blinded in one eye or invoke any reasonably severe penalty that still takes into account what the monster has done. It is very demoralizing to the players to lose a cared-for-player  character when they have played well. When they have done something stupid or have not taken precautions, then let the dice fall where they may! Again, if you have available ample means of raising characters from the dead, even death is not too severe; remember, however, the constitution-based limit to resurrections. Yet one die roll that you should NEVER tamper with is the SYSTEM SHOCK ROLL to be raised from the dead. If a character fails that roll, which he or she should make him or herself, he or she is FOREVER DEAD. There MUST be some final death or immortality will take over and again the game will become boring because the player characters will have 9+ lives each!​
I don't see either passage as _advocating_ for GM force, and nor for illusionism. The focus is on preserving the correlation between skilled play and PC survival, and even in respect of that there is an evident degree of hesitation - both expressly in the advice, and also in the surrounding admonitions to _disinterest_ and to _giving monsters and NPCs an even break_.

Where Gygax in his DMG seems most comfortable endorsing GM interference with rolls is on this same page, in relation to "finding a particular clue, e.g. a secret door that leads to a complex of monsters and treasures that will be especially entertaining" and on p 9, where he suggests that if a party is "doing everything possible to travel quickly and quietly to their planned destination" but the GM keeps getting wandering monsters on the die check, then rather than "spoil such an otherwise enjoyable time" the GM might "omit the wandering monsters indicated by the die." He contrasts this setting aside of the wandering monster result with "allow[ing] the party to kill them [ie rolled monsters] easily or escape unnaturally" which would be "contrary to the major precepts of the game". And he also says that "If a party deserves to have these beasties inflicted upon them, that is another matter" ie the GM should not set aside the wandering monster result.

This approach to wanderming monsters can be seen as another instance of preserving the correlation between skilled play and PC success, but it is connected to _introduction of content by the GM_. The secret door example is also about _introduction of content_. One can see how the use of GM decision-making around introduction of content can drift into the "choreographed novel" approach, especially because wandering mosters are both content introduction but also a mode of consequence for action declaration (epsecially poor and time-wasting declared actions); but I don't think it's the same thing. In the choreographed novel, the GM is doing more than just opening up an opportunity for hijinks (as with the secret door example), and there is no longer any sort of guiding principle of trying to ensure that skilled players are not unduly penalised by poor dice rolls on their or the GM's part. 

The 1977 version of Traveller contemplates the referee setting up special worlds, or running special encounters, that will be especially interesting for the players. These are flagged as express departures from the basic principles of random generation of content. But, again, I think these suggestions around content introduction have to be drifted quite a bit to get to the "choreographed novel" of the 1982 version.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 17, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> Setting up a dichotomy between OSR and the 80s editions seems like weird, false dichotomy to me that is ahistorical.
> 
> While it was much less common to have E&E (examples and explanations) in gaming manuals for OSR, it is also equally clear that both by custom and in the scant materials we do see, that "gentle guidance" was used in OSR.




On the other hand I see a stark historical divide in D&D itself in the 80s, with utterly unrestrained force taking over as the dominant style in the mid 80s when the Dragonlance Saga became immensely popular. That module series was a complete railroad campaign and had such things as the Obscure Death Rule to prevent story-critical PCs dying too soon.

The Old School editions that all the OSR I've read follow all reject this path that D&D headed down in the 80s - and RPGs were going that way before it took over as the dominant style being published for D&D.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 17, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Say one of my players comes up with a character build that is abusive.  As GM, I may nerf a feat used in the build to keep the PC power balance appropriate.  This is a use of Rule Zero that is not aimed at any particular pre-ordained goal, and so is not GM Force.



This is not the Golden Rule of WW/Storyteller as I understand it. You are talking about curation in list-based PC building. This is an unhappy aspect of that sort of system, though it doesn't have to be done by the GM - when we play list-based PC-build games, my players can be quite good at doing their own curation based on their own sense of what is fair and what's an exploit.

I'm talking about the proposition that the GM can alter/set aside the mechanics _in the interests of the story_. I don't have books in front of me, but Googling took me to a possibly copyright-violating Italian website where I found this from Ch 8 of V:tM:

. . . you choose, for the interests of the story, that the rebellion succeeds, thanks to or in spite of the characters' actions. . . .

Your ultimate finale must be worth the effort the characters went through to get there. This is a golden rule of storytelling. Anticlimaxes work fine in books, but not when a group of people have put in hours of effort to reach a goal. The more the players and their characters have to endure, the more dramatic the climax has to be, or they will come away disappointed.​
The Storyteller here is not being advised to curate broken interactions from complex lists. This is a more elaborate account of how to run a "choreographed novel".


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 17, 2020)

Umbran said:


> I think in this you are... rather exceedingly incorrect here.  This is like saying that a screwdriver is the act of prying open a can of paint!
> 
> Rule Zero, and the Golden Rule are tools for the GM.  One possible use of that tool is GM Force as you define it above.  But, there are a bunch of other uses for the tool which are _NOT_ GM Force.  .
> 
> Say one of my players comes up with a character build that is abusive.  As GM, I may nerf a feat used in the build to keep the PC power balance appropriate.  This is a use of Rule Zero that is not aimed at any particular pre-ordained goal, and so is not GM Force.



This is Force.  This GM is changing/ignoring the rules of the game to force an outcome the GM desires.  Clearly, the player here has engaged the rules but the outcome is not to the GM's liking, so the GM's unilaterally changes the game to get the outcome the GM wants.  Force.



> Meanwhile, there are techniques a GM can use to force a given storyline or sequence of events in game that do not require adjustments of the rules, such that Rule Zero or the Golden Rule do not apply.



Not really.  The fundamental play loop of 5e, for instance (as a game with a Rule Zero), is that the GM describes the scene, the players declare actions, and the GM determines the success of those actions, either through fiat or mechanics (forgive the bluntness, I love 5e, but it's full of GM fiat).  If the GM is forcing outcomes on the players it's almost always not following this play loop, hence the GM is ignoring the core play rules of the game.


> Thus, I think GM Force and Rule Zero are orthogonal.



GM Force is strongly encouraged by Rule Zero.  Rule Zero is a force multiplier for Force (heh).  They aren't orthogonal at all, but rather strongly correlated.   Games that have Rule Zero also often are very friendly to GM Force techniques.

Again, I love 5e, and, when I play it, GM Force is a tool in my box.  It's not inherently bad -- many players enjoy a bit of Force, especially Illusionism, because it provides a fun play experience where there are fewer demands on the players (the GM is using Force to create a fun game instead of leaning on the players to help).  Being aware of it will improve your play in that you're now making more informed and critical choices in what tools you bring to bear on a situation.  You don't have to make sure that what it is you like to do isn't Force, because it being Force doesn't make it bad (unless you hate Force, of course).  It's helpful to be open to understanding that the default mode of play for modern D&D is GM Force, what that is, how it works, and how you use it.  It's just a tool.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 17, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> I defined it as I use it.
> On the other hand, I have absolutely no idea why anyone would use either 3.x for OSR or ... Torchbearer?
> 
> Torchbearer is, IMO, about 590 miles away from OSR.




On a tangent:
The two games generally thought of as the games that kicked the OSR off, Castles & Crusades, and OSRIC were both put together very carefully under Wizards' of the Coast's Open Gaming License to be extremely close retroclones which were legally unimpeachable thanks to the license WotC put the 3.0 System Reference Doccument out in.  You might have no idea why someone would have done that, but some of us remember and some remember how litigious TSR used to get.

Torchbearer on the other hand was designed to give the style of play presented in old school D&D products like Keep on the Borderlands - but uses something extremely different from the classic D&D engine. Which means it tests one of the implicit assumptions that OSR advocates often make - whether a lot of it is about engine familiarity and policing boundaries.

Edit for @pemerton pointing out I'd got the wrong module


----------



## pemerton (Feb 17, 2020)

Neonchameleon said:


> Torchbearer on the other hand was designed to give the style of play presented in old school D&D products like Keep on the Shadowfell Borderlands



Just a friendly edit there!


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 17, 2020)

pemerton said:


> @Ovinomancer - my understanding of the Golden Rule is that it is not just [i[if you don't like a rule, change it[/i] but rather _ignore the rules, if necessary, in the interest of the story_. It is an instruction/permission directed to the GM (ie the _players _are't being conferred permission to ignore the rules in the interests of the story).



I still disagree the Golden Rule Zero (GRZ) is solely about enabling Force and not also a reaction to strictly codified rules play where nothing happens except if the rule say so, another current of the time that turn of the decade (70s/80s) was a reaction to.



> I agree with you that prep and force are independent. Lewis Pulsipher is (was? I'm talking about stuff he weote 40 years ago) the best advocate I know of the wargaming/"skilled play" style of D&D (Gygax is the second best I know) - in his articles in early White Dwarf Pulsipher emphasises the importance of prep, in part to _avoid_ force (eg if you prep, you have an impartial answer to the action declaration _I cast Detect Magic - what glows?_).
> 
> From his wargaming perspective, Pulsipher is pretty unrestrained in his criticism of the "choregographed novel" approach to D&D. It's interesting to revisit his criticisms today in light of the emergence of that as a dominant mode of RPGing, and then a new and prominent wave of criticism from a different (Forge/non-wargaming) perspective.



I, honestly, have a hard time taking Pulsipher as a good source, given his inability to see any other kinds of gaming, sometimes even to recognize it.  Pulsipher's more recent writing have indicated that even games like Burning Wheel do not meet his definitions of RPGs.  I see him more as someone that had a strong opinion that happened to be a good one rather than a deep thinker that improved the discussion around RPGs through theory.  My take, and a bit off topic.

That said, yes, there's a break in how you can approach gaming.  Pulsipher was strongly for prep and no Force, but it's hard to say that the original material was so far in that corner.



> I wouldn't characterise choosing a module as GM force, because it's not really guidance or manipulation - it doesn't interact with action declaration or resolution at all. On the other hand, a response to an action declaration _We go west_ of _Please don't go west, I haven't mapped that out yet _probably counts as force - I guess it's a type of adjudication of the declaration - but certainly not illusionism!



Sure.


> Roger Musson, who was another very thoughtful contributor to early White Dwarf who engaged with some of these issues, advocated a type of "illusionism light" for such situations - don't negat the action declaration per se, but place something there (his example is a dozen ogres holding a union meeting) that will make the players revise their decision. That sort of tactic is probably going to be obvious enough in many cases that it's not really serving an illusionist purpose but rather providing a rudimentary peg on which all the participants can hang their immersion in the shared fiction.



This is as much Force as denying the request, though.  If, in the moment, the GM is placing blockers to corral the players in the direction the GM wants, that's Force.  If the GM placed the blocker in prep, then it may be Force, depending on if it's intent is to corral to desired ends or a legitimate encounter/obstacle that can be circumvented or used by clever players.  If the GM placed the blocker due to a failed roll involving exploration of that fork, then it's not Force, it's the GM responding to the failure to thwart the intent of the players, not insert his own intent.

I don't see how ignoring an application of Force if it's according to some principle or only occasionally used or if the players like it is helpful at all -- it dilutes the definition of Force from a useful description of a technique to an arbitrary derogative in situations we don't like.  Force is a tool -- one that's easily abused -- and how/when it's used shouldn't change it's nature.


> Here is the Gygas quote from The Strategic Reviw (2.2, Apr 1976) that @lowke13 mentioned:
> 
> [A]bsolute disinterest must be exercised by the Dungeonmaster, and if a favorite player stupidly puts himself into a situation where he is about to be killed, let the dice tell the story and KILL him. This is not to say that you should never temper chance with a bit of “Divine Intervention,” but helping players should be a rare act on the referee’s part, and the action should only be taken when fate seems to have unjustly condemned an otherwise good player, and then not in every circumstance should the referee intervene.​
> To me this seems very similar to the following from p 110 of his DMG:
> ...



Nope, Gygax is advocating for Force.  It doesn't become not Force if it's in pursuit of certain play aesthetics.  Again, either Force is a defined tool or it's just an arbitrary label for play we don't like. I'm perfectly OK with Gygax advocating for Force, here.  Force is, indeed, a useful tool in a lot of D&D or D&D-like play because the mechanics are generally pass/fail with fail being often related to character death.  Smudging the corners a bit is a good tool, as Gygax notes here.  Doesn't mean that it becomes not Force because you have a good reason.  Rather, it's still Force, just employed for a good reason.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 17, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> This is Force.  This GM is changing/ignoring the rules of the game to force an outcome the GM desires.  Clearly, the player here has engaged the rules but the outcome is not to the GM's liking, so the GM's unilaterally changes the game to get the outcome the GM wants.  Force.




With respect, this is deviating from the OP's definition of force.  The OP defines force clearly in the context of forcing a particular _narrative_ goal, as in a "choreographed novel".   To be honest, we already have a term for what's being discussed in the OP - "Railroading".

I will not engage with your expanded definition.  As I have noted elsewhere - arguments over the definition of terms are generally proxy arguments for some more basic issue.  If you want to discuss that more basic issue, we can do that.  



> Not really.  The fundamental play loop of 5e, for instance (as a game with a Rule Zero), is that the GM describes the scene, the players declare actions, and the GM determines the success of those actions, either through fiat or mechanics (forgive the bluntness, I love 5e, but it's full of GM fiat).  If the GM is forcing outcomes on the players it's almost always not following this play loop, hence the GM is ignoring the core play rules of the game.




And, I think here we may see the more fundamental issue that's stuck in your craw.

You are talking about determining the success of individual actions and changing results during play.  I was not.  I was generally talking about editing the rules -  I _specifically_ noted making a change for sake of overall game balance, not for a particular result of the moment.  You have gone off to dealing with specific outcomes.  I am sorry to say, you have stood up a strawman.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 17, 2020)

pemerton said:


> This is not the Golden Rule of WW/Storyteller as I understand it. You are talking about curation in list-based PC building. This is an unhappy aspect of that sort of system, though it doesn't have to be done by the GM - when we play list-based PC-build games, my players can be quite good at doing their own curation based on their own sense of what is fair and what's an exploit.




I give an example in one, but the point is not limited to "list based" games (And geeze, the stack of jargon you people have built up - do you realize that you make your discussion impenetrable to anyone who hasn't been following it for years?)



> I'm talking about the proposition that the GM can alter/set aside the mechanics _in the interests of the story_.




I understand that.  This is exactly why I am noting that the notions of Rule Zero and the Golden Rule are not _limited_ to what you are talking about - these notions are more broad than the case you are making.  This runs the danger of coming down to a criticism of Rule Zero that really isn't about Rule Zero at all.

And also, as I think I noted, laying these at the food of Rule Zero is missing the fact that many instances of GM Force, as you put it, has nothing at all to do with setting aside game rules!

Thus, I still maintain, GM Force is worth discussing, but framing it with respect to rules changes is missing a great deal of the issue.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 17, 2020)

Umbran said:


> With respect, this is deviating from the OP's definition of force.  The OP defines force clearly in the context of forcing a particular _narrative_ goal, as in a "choreographed novel".   To be honest, we already have a term for what's being discussed in the OP - "Railroading".



The OP provides an example of Force in the context of the choreographed novel.  That's not the full definition of Force, and I happen to know that the OP is fully aware and has previously discussed other applications, so it's a bit presumptuous of you to limit the definition of a term to that which supports your argument and claim the OP did it.



> I will not engage with your expanded definition.  As I have noted elsewhere - arguments over the definition of terms are generally proxy arguments for some more basic issue.  If you want to discuss that more basic issue, we can do that.



It's not expanded, it's the definition of Force, regardless of the OP's choice of example.  And, if you don't wish to discuss it, why are you continuing, here?



> And, I think here we may see the more fundamental issue that's stuck in your craw.



Seriously, "stuck in my craw?"  Could you have chosen a less antagonistic phrasing to describe what you perceive as a critical element of my disagreement with you and @pemerton?  



> You are talking about determining the success of individual actions and changing results during play.  I was not.  I was generally talking about editing the rules -  I _specifically_ noted making a change for sake of overall game balance, not for a particular result of the moment.  You have gone off to dealing with specific outcomes.  I am sorry to say, you have stood up a strawman.



No, the bit you quote was in response to your claim that:



			
				Umbran's claim said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, there are techniques a GM can use to force a given storyline or sequence of events in game that do not require adjustments of the rules, such that Rule Zero or the Golden Rule do not apply.




As such, it's clearly not a strawman because it doesn't apply to the bit your applying it to.  If any strawman exists, it's yours, but I'd rather call this a misattribution or brief confusion of arguments.  

And, absolutely I stand by my statement.  If the GM is forcing a "given storyline or sequence of events in game" the only way to do this is to violate the core gameplay loop of 'describe, act, adjudicate'.  One of those is being altered or ignored for the GM to be able to Force an outcome.  It's unavoidable.  You cannot have a macro change without changes at the micro level.




Force is NOT BAD in an of itself.  I wish I could make it more clear that Force isn't an automatic negative, nor does it lead to bad play, or bad results. Like any tool, it can be abused, but that's up to the specific application.  Naming something Force doesn't put a stink on it, it acknowledges what's occurring in the play.  I use Force when I run 5e, unabashedly, even.  I absolutely do NOT use Force in Blades in the Dark.  But, these are different games, and I play them for different reasons, so it makes sense that I change the tools I use when I run them.  Force isn't Teh Badness, it's a tool.  Please stop having feeling you have to defend from the definition because you think it's a slight on your methods of play.  It's not, it's a codification of a technique.


----------



## Sadras (Feb 17, 2020)

@Ovinomancer 
I might be mistaken, but are you essentially classifying GM Force as _any change_ to the base rules of a game? i.e. The addition, removal or ammendment of a rule.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 17, 2020)

Sadras said:


> @Ovinomancer
> I might be mistaken, but are you essentially classifying GM Force as _any change_ to the base rules of a game? i.e. The addition, removal or ammendment of a rule.



Absolutely not!  @Manbearcat has a good definition in another thread that sums it up succinctly:

*Manipulation of the gamestate (typically covert) by a GM which nullifies (or in slightly more benign cases; modifies) player input in order to form or maintain a narrative that conforms to the GM's vision.* 

This almost always impacts rules, but impacting rules is not the definition. If the GM annunciates rule changes prior to play, then this isn't a rule change that impacts Force because the players will interact with it fairly and it won't affect outcomes by subverting player input.  Or, the rule change can be through consensus, which clearly can't be Force as the players' input is paramount to consensus.

Long and short, if the GM is changing something to get their preferred outcome, that's Force.  Changing rules before play doesn't cause the GM's preferred outcome, as it's prior to the outcome.  That said, I can see some very abusive rules implementations to be akin to Force and possibly even Force, but we're pretty far into abusive play at that point and no theory of games survives abusive play.  The assumption of non-abusive play should be the base for all of these discussions.  If we're talking about abusive play, we're already off the rails for useful discussion.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 17, 2020)

These excerpts are from James Bond 007 (1983) pgs 97-99 and 119 published by Victory Games. They're much more extensive than the 1982 Traveller quotation, I think because the James Bond rpg has the replication of fiction, and very specific fiction at that, as its principle aim.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 17, 2020)

These excerpts are from Star Wars: The Roleplaying Game (1987) pages 89-92 published by West End Games. I would draw particular attention to this bit from page 90:

The purpose of any roleplaying game is to tell a story. The purpose of _Star Wars: The Roleplaying Game_ is to tell stories like those of the movies. The rules are a structure that help you tell stories by giving you impartial ways to decide whether actions succeed or fail. But sometimes, the rules get in the way.​


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 17, 2020)

Glasgow University Gaming Society in the late 90s was heavily influenced by the James Bond and Star Wars rpgs. There were generally considered to be two sorts of rpgs - serious ones with realistic rules, and fun ones that tried to emulate fiction. Because D&D lacked realistic rules it was thought to be in the second camp. It was as if they grasped Simulationism and Dramatism but not Gamism (to use the GDS rather than GNS terminology.)


----------



## Umbran (Feb 17, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> The OP provides an example of Force in the context of the choreographed novel.  That's not the full definition of Force, and I happen to know that the OP is fully aware and has previously discussed other applications, so it's a bit presumptuous of you to limit the definition of a term to that which supports your argument and claim the OP did it.




Right.  You are the one citing unspecified other conversations outside this thread as support for an assertion, and _I_ am the one being presumptuous?  Because, "Pemerton and I agree upon this, so naturally we are correct and we can just say everyone else is wrong," and again, _I_ am the one being presumptuous?

I referenced what was written.  That should be sufficient.  

If you want this to be the Ovinomancer and Pemerton show, please take it to e-mail.  If you want to start a "Ovinomancer & Pemerton Masterclass" series of threads, where you assume those who engage are up on all the O&P subtexts and you are allowed to cast aspersions on folks who dare to engage otherwise... at least do us the favor of labeling them as such. 

Because this? This is obnoxious.  You're in an open forum, and you should not treat your previous discussions as required reading here.


----------



## CleverNickName (Feb 17, 2020)

der_kluge said:


> I once gamed with a GM who had a PhD in psychology. He had this annoying capability to present us with options which appeared to be free will, but in reality he was leading us down a very specific path. Once my friend and I figured out we were being railroaded, we tried everything in our power to derail his train, but to no avail. It was very annoying.



Out of curiosity, did you try to "derail his train" because you didn't like where it was heading?  Or was it because you realized you were on a train and therefore, needed to derail it on principle?

I don't have a problem with being railroaded as long as the story is interesting and I feel* like my decisions matter.  You want me to go to The Place and do The Thing?  Sure, sounds fun.  As long as you aren't arbitrarily resurrecting NPCs that died in past gaming sessions, or conveniently sparing certain characters with Plot Armor, or otherwise removing our impact on the story, that is.

(*Note the "I feel" in this paragraph.  It's important.  Whether or not our decisions _truly_ matter is entirely up to the DM, and a talented DM will make this impossible to confirm or deny.)


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 17, 2020)

These are from the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Dungeon Master's Guide 2nd edition (1989) pages 101 and 103:

*Is This Encounter Necessary?*

Any time the DM feels his adventure is dragging along or that characters are getting over-confident he can declare a random encounter. Likewise if he feels that a random encounter would hurt the adventure he can ignore one that's called for. Good judgement and story considerations are more important than slavish devotion to procedure.

*The Encounter Is Too Difficult*

The DM has accidentally pitted his player characters against a group of creatures too powerful for them, so much so that the player characters are doomed. To fix things, the DM can have the monsters flee in inexplicable panic; secretly lower their hit points; allow the player characters to hit or inflict more damage than they really should; have the monsters miss on attacks when they actually hit; have the creatures make grievous mistakes in strategy (like ignoring the thief moving in to strike from behind).​


----------



## pemerton (Feb 17, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> This is as much Force as denying the request, though.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



Musson's idea of a union meeting of ogres can be seen as Force. I don't think it's very illusionistic, for the reasons I gave (ie it's pretty transparent at the moment of play).

Gygax's suggestion to turn the death of the skilled player's character into (say) maiming or unconscious instead is barely force as I characterised it upthread ie is barely an instance of "guiding" or "manipulating". It's also not illusionistic, insofar as the player will know it was a GM decision, there being no purely mechanical process in classic D&D to produce such outcomes.

Gygax's suggesion about wandering monsters is not force in the relevant sense - it's not guiding or manipulating anything.

Gygax's suggestion about a secret door _is _a type of guiding or manipulating, I think, but again barely. It's always open to the players to just ignore the door they discover, and - under his precepts - the GM has no device for getting them there. Notice that he _doesn't _ suggest, say, using wandering monsters to chase the PCs through the door they've discovered.

This is why I say there needs to be some drifting to get from Gygax's remarks to the "choreographed novel". You can see this drifting in the passages from the 2nd ed AD&D DMG that @Doug McCrae posted.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 17, 2020)

@Doug McCrae - thanks for posting those excerpts. The AD&D 2nd ed one shows how much the "precepts of the game" changed across editions - what was once contrary to them (ie having the PCs unnatrrally escape) is now advocated. Related to this is a change in premise about who is choosing the encounters - in Gygax's DMG it is assumed that _the players _choose encounters (by choosing where to go in the dungeon, as per his PHB entry on Successful Adventures and reflected also in his description of a session on p 9 of the DMG), whereas in the 2nd ed one it is _the GM_ who has pitted the PCs against an encounter.

The ones from James Bond and Star Wars show not just a premise of strong GM control over framing, but over plot. So the dramatic trajectory is known (to the GM) in advance.

The great innovation in RPGing since those games has been to work out how to reconcile GM control over framing with the absence of GM control over plot, via techniques such as "say 'yes' or roll the dice", "fail forward" (in the Burning Wheel/Ron Edwards sense of that term ie not just success with complications), etc.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 17, 2020)

Call of Cthulhu 1st edition (1981) is interested in emulating fiction and it wants to produce an emotional effect on the players, but I don't think it recommends using GM Force or Illusionism in pursuit of these ends.

Charts for random encounters, wandering monsters, and/or similar things are the bane of _Call of Cthulhu_. _In this game, each adventure should be carefully crafted to give the players the maximum amount of thrills and chills. It is extremely important to try to keep the feel of a horror story in the game_...

Don't kill the characters too quickly. _Call of Cthulhu_ is dangerous enough with insanity and other threats. Don't
force the players to roll up new characters too often. When a character faints, let him lie there instead of having
the monster eat him. When a player with a hireling sleeps in a haunted house and the Inhabitant decides to make away with one of them, have him make away with the hireling. The central Investigators should not live charmed lives, but they will be dying often enough without your making a special effort to kill them.

Above all, keep your campaign full of bumps in the attic, sinister strangers, and dark and stormy nights. Make sure that it is spooky enough to give your players the creeps.​


----------



## prabe (Feb 17, 2020)

Doug McCrae said:


> Call of Cthulhu 1st edition (1981) is interested in emulating fiction and it wants to produce an emotional effect on the players, but I don't think it recommends using GM Force or Illusionism in pursuit of these ends.
> 
> Charts for random encounters, wandering monsters, and/or similar things are the bane of _Call of Cthulhu_. _In this game, each adventure should be carefully crafted to give the players the maximum amount of thrills and chills. It is extremely important to try to keep the feel of a horror story in the game_...​​Don't kill the characters too quickly. _Call of Cthulhu_ is dangerous enough with insanity and other threats. Don't​force the players to roll up new characters too often. When a character faints, let him lie there instead of having​the monster eat him. When a player with a hireling sleeps in a haunted house and the Inhabitant decides to make away with one of them, have him make away with the hireling. The central Investigators should not live charmed lives, but they will be dying often enough without your making a special effort to kill them.​​Above all, keep your campaign full of bumps in the attic, sinister strangers, and dark and stormy nights. Make sure that it is spooky enough to give your players the creeps.​




Sounds to me as though there's some Force happening, but it's arguably within the social contract of the game. And one suspects that Illusionism is at least a temptation, so the GM can show off all the terrors and monsters and sinister happenings.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 18, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Right.  You are the one citing unspecified other conversations outside this thread as support for an assertion, and _I_ am the one being presumptuous?  Because, "Pemerton and I agree upon this, so naturally we are correct and we can just say everyone else is wrong," and again, _I_ am the one being presumptuous?
> 
> I referenced what was written.  That should be sufficient.
> 
> ...



I'm a bit flabbergasted that you've characterized me as obnoxious after the last post where you used loaded phrases to diminish my point and accused me of a strawman (which you avoid, here, presumptively because you recognized that and beeded to maintain your strong position of being the affronted one).

Pointing out that Force has a broader definition than the example in the OP shouldn't be contrivesial, unless it's required for you to maintain your sense of correctness   I'm at a loss as to why this has suddenly ballooned into you being very aggressive in ways you've called others out for while wearing your mod hat.


Umbran said:


> Right.  You are the one citing unspecified other conversations outside this thread as support for an assertion, and _I_ am the one being presumptuous?  Because, "Pemerton and I agree upon this, so naturally we are correct and we can just say everyone else is wrong," and again, _I_ am the one being presumptuous?
> 
> I referenced what was written.  That should be sufficient.
> 
> ...



Ok.  It's pretty clear at this point that you're more interested in assigning me dishonest motives that engaging in conversation.  I'll concede, as I see no path remaining back to discussion from here.  Also, once a mod labels your behavior as obnoxious, it's not far to seeing red text if you continue to annoy them, intentionally or not.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 18, 2020)

pemerton said:


> Musson's idea of a union meeting of ogres can be seen as Force. I don't think it's very illusionistic, for the reasons I gave (ie it's pretty transparent at the moment of play).
> 
> Gygax's suggestion to turn the death of the skilled player's character into (say) maiming or unconscious instead is barely force as I characterised it upthread ie is barely an instance of "guiding" or "manipulating". It's also not illusionistic, insofar as the player will know it was a GM decision, there being no purely mechanical process in classic D&D to produce such outcomes.
> 
> ...



If Force is the manipulation of the game state to negate or alter player input (a la @Manbearcat), then all of these are Force, as the outcomes of the player input are defined by the game mechanics as A, but the GM changes them to B for purposes of the GM's intent of a better story.  I'm not saying these are bad uses of Force -- they're not -- and even appear that they may be principled uses of Force (for a given set of principles), but that doesn't change the fact that the GM has put his thumb on the scales of the system to redirect the outcome from what the player input and resolution mechanics say it should be, and does so because the GM believes the outcome to be better suited to his desires.


----------



## prabe (Feb 18, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> If Force is the manipulation of the game state to negate or alter player input (a la @Manbearcat), then all of these are Force, as the outcomes of the player input are defined by the game mechanics as A, but the GM changes them to B for purposes of the GM's intent of a better story.  I'm not saying these are bad uses of Force -- they're not -- and even appear that they may be principled uses of Force (for a given set of principles), but that doesn't change the fact that the GM has put his thumb on the scales of the system to redirect the outcome from what the player input and resolution mechanics say it should be, and does so because the GM believes the outcome to be better suited to his desires.




I wonder how often GMs exert Force because they think the outcome will better match the *players'* desires. I know it happens (I know I've done it). I don't know if the difference in intent matters (much).


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 18, 2020)

Couple quick thoughts:

1)  Pre-game scenario design or picking a game/dungeon's premise is never a case of Force.  Now imposing prepped material from that scenario/dungeon/premise upon play in a way that nullifies player input is Force.

2)  If you're (a) running a challenge-based game (Step on Up) where (b) overcoming obstacles via your general and system-relevant guile is the apex (or even exclusive) priority of play and (c) the GM subverts the product of that guile + rules interactions for the sake of their own agenda (ensuring content x is introduced, to alter the overall pacing of the delve, to create conflict that is outside the scope of your responsibility as neutral referee), then that has to be Force.

I would even call altering the product of the content introduction machinery (wandering monsters) because you're dissatisfied with _this _particular instantiation of the dice probability to be Force.  That is because players are making decisions to continue exploring (and how - which may including spending resources) vs rest vs withdraw and are dealing with multiple clocks depending upon the game (overall strategic resources, perhaps a condition clock, perhaps a wandering monster clock.  It doesn't just interfere with the authenticity of this particular moment of play, but it also alters the overall delve.

In my opinion, if the designer or the GM doesn't like the overall probability curve of one (or more) of the clocks, the answer is to iterate and redesign the curve, not curate out particular content produced by the content introduction machinery (which the players are interfacing with to make their general and system-relevant guile based decisions).

Now...

In games that are not apex or exclusively challenge-based and have different approaches to content introduction, this will be different (which is why I'm isolating this to strictly challenge-based games).  

I think this is also illuminating as to why things could get so wobbly when (a) things move from the dungeon to the wilderness (where the clocks become more wobbly and player decision-points become less constrained) and (b) when spellcaster's power would achieve capacity to completely reframe or just outright circumvent challenges (and therefore the machinery of content introduction, the "clocks", that is meant to test player's general and system-relevant guile becomes rendered moot in large chunks or in whole).


----------



## prabe (Feb 18, 2020)

A couple of questions, from my own games, all serious questions, not expecting value/moral judgments. I'll be snipping (trying not to destroy context).



Manbearcat said:


> Couple quick thoughts:
> 
> 1)  Pre-game scenario design or picking a game/dungeon's premise is never a case of Force.  Now imposing prepped material from that scenario/dungeon/premise upon play in a way that nullifies player input is Force.




So, while the players/characters are choosing which goal/s to pursue, I'm choosing which ones are available, and when/where the party finds out about them. Is this Force (this is a serious question, for clarity not moral judgment (which I think is where we are anyway)).?



Manbearcat said:


> In my opinion, if the designer or the GM doesn't like the overall probability curve of one (or more) of the clocks, the answer is to iterate and redesign the curve, not curate out particular content produced by the content introduction machinery (which the players are interfacing with to make their general and system-relevant guile based decisions).




So, what about if a GM removes some character options from the game, because they don't match his preferences in ways that aren't about any sort of power curve?


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 18, 2020)

@prabe

Force, as a concept, isn't about pre-game curation of setting/situation.  Its about at-the-table, in-the-moment, handling of content introduction.

The only time out-of-game curation of setting/situation would be considered Force is when you (the GM) are manipulating the setting/situation by altering the gamestate/introducing alternative content that is preferred by you, such that it nullifies/subordinates a player's prior, during-play input (and the authentic outcome they earned with that declared action and/or binding action resolution result).


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 18, 2020)

prabe said:


> I wonder how often GMs exert Force because they think the outcome will better match the *players'* desires. I know it happens (I know I've done it). I don't know if the difference in intent matters (much).



I'd actually hazard to say more often than not.  This is why I don't characterize Force as inherently bad.  It's a tool, and one that's easy to reach for.  I've stopped (mostly, D&D makes Force almost necessary at times) using it this way in my 5e games by better negotiating the action declarations and being clear about stakes, tools I learned in other games but that are very applicable to 5e.  I find I have less need of Force if I do these things.  That might not be everyone's cuppa (and, indeed, I've received strong negative feedback to the idea on occasion), and that's fine.  My journey is my own.  I'm not going to stop advocating for it, because someone else my find value in it, but I don't think it's the only way, and probably often not the best way for a given group.  It's pretty good for me, though, and I'm cool with that.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 18, 2020)

As far as Gygax goes, though he eschewed simulationism on the whole, he had randomly idiosyncratic views on hewing to it when he felt that the game's content introduction mechanics created weird results that wouldn't play nice with his players using their guile to draw dungeon-ecology-based-inference.  The priority was challenge-based gaming...the simulationism "interference" was a means to an end to help stabilize his player's dungeon-ecology-based-inference.

But to me...that is a big problem.  And, like I said above, its a problem with the probability curve that his content introduction machinery creates...so he should have continued iterating.

In my opinion, this is why both Moldvay Basic and Torchbearer are both just fundamentally better game's than Gygax's D&D (when it comes to challenge-based gaming).


----------



## prabe (Feb 18, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> @prabe
> 
> Force, as a concept, isn't about pre-game curation of setting/situation.  Its about at-the-table, in-the-moment, handling of content introduction.
> 
> The only time out-of-game curation of setting/situation would be considered Force is when you (the GM) are manipulating the setting/situation by altering the gamestate/introducing alternative content that is preferred by you, such that it nullifies/subordinates a player's prior, during-play input (and the authentic outcome they earned with that declared action and/or binding action resolution result).




That's about what I thought I understood. Thanks for the clarification. I may be about to make some minor changes in a character's backstory (as written by the player) because there are some things about the setting that he didn't entirely grok, and there are things in his backstory that got lost because he wrote more than I was expecting and couldn't hold it all in my head. I'm hoping we can come to some sort of terms, here.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 18, 2020)

pemerton said:


> The _choreographed novel_ [my emphasis] involves a setting already thought out by the referee and presented to the players; it may be any of the above settings [ship, location or world], but contains predetermined elements. As such, the referee has already developed characters and setting which bear on the group's activities, and they are guided gently to the proper locations. Properly done, the players never know that the referee has manipulated them to a fore-ordained goal​
> The "gentle guidance" and "manipulation" referred to here are exactly instances of what gets labelled _GM force_. The aspiration that the players not know about it, if it is "properly done", is exactly what gets labelled _illusionism_. (It is consistent with illusionism that the players know, in general terms, that it is going on - eg it won't be spoiled by a player having read this passage in The Traveller Book. The aspiration for player ignorance is not in respect of the general phenomenon, but rather at the point of application of GM force.)




I don't know that I agree with the definition of forcing on this thread.  That said i'm not here to argue definitions and I step into this knowing full well that i'm at a disadvantage due to the terms being yours.  That said,

It seems to me that the only way for a DM to not use forcing as described above is to create a fully procedural world where the dice dictate every thing.  How is anything else not forcing?


----------



## Sadras (Feb 18, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> It seems to me that the only way for a DM to not use forcing as described above is to create a fully procedural world where the dice dictate every thing.  How is anything else not forcing?




Apparently framing is not forcing as long as you do not change anything related to the PC (i.e. backstory)


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 18, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> I don't know that I agree with the definition of forcing on this thread.  That said i'm not here to argue definitions and I step into this knowing full well that i'm at a disadvantage due to the terms being yours.  That said,
> 
> It seems to me that the only way for a DM to not use forcing as described above is to create a fully procedural world where the dice dictate every thing.  How is anything else not forcing?



I think the point in the quote, which isn't terribly clear on it's own, is that there's a difference between building out, say, a dungeon, and then letting the players wander it how they wish and building the same dungeon, but shepherding the players to the final climactic battle in the last room with the cool NPC you built.  This is a gross example, but works.  In the former state, the PCs will live or die according to how they act.  In the latter, they'll find ways blocked or opened as needed to get to the end goal of the GM.

You could also achieve the no-force by using many of the systems designed to create content as you play -- building on the outcomes of the last action.  This style of play means that content is created on the fly, and often according to player inputs, and that can rub people the wrong way.  A good example is the secret door.  A PC meets a blank wall.  They announce they're searching for a secret door, which is put to the mechanics.  If they succeed, there's a secret door there.  If they fail, there may be a secret door, but it's trapped/has monsters behind it/goes to a bad place and seals behind them/doesn't exist and guards show up/etc.  As you might have surmised, no one knows if there's a secret door in that wall until the mechanics resolve and then either the player gets their intent or the GM thwarts it (or you get some of both, depending on if the mechanics has a range of outcome).  This style of play really prevents all Force, mostly by making any application immediately obvious.  "I search for a secret door, success!"  "You don't find a secret door, but a closet with the Boogeyman!"  "Bob, darn it, we talked about this, you have to stop making everything about the Boogeyman, besides, I succeeded so there has to be a secret door here.  Play right, Bob."


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 18, 2020)

Sadras said:


> Apparently framing is not forcing as long as you do not change anything related to the PC (i.e. backstory)



It's only force, at least in my understanding, when the GM is introducing material with the expectation of steering the game towards a specific later state.  It's the GM framing gamestate B after A, because they've already thought of a cool gamestate C.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 18, 2020)

TwoSix said:


> It's only force, at least in my understanding, when the GM is introducing material with the expectation of steering the game towards a specific later state.  It's the GM framing gamestate B after A, because they've already thought of a cool gamestate C.



That force is only a bad thing if that specific later state and/or the mechanics of steering contravene the social contract of the table.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 18, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> That force is only a bad thing if that specific later state and/or the mechanics of steering contravene the social contract of the table.



Of course.  Ideally, we can have a definition of "force" that doesn't include a normative judgment about its use.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 18, 2020)

TwoSix said:


> Of course.  Ideally, we can have a definition of "force" that doesn't include a normative judgment about its use.



This is why I like @Manbearcat's formulation (posted upthread) -- it's judgement free.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 18, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> I think the point in the quote, which isn't terribly clear on it's own, is that there's a difference between building out, say, a dungeon, and then letting the players wander it how they wish and building the same dungeon, but shepherding the players to the final climactic battle in the last room with the cool NPC you built.  This is a gross example, but works.  In the former state, the PCs will live or die according to how they act.  In the latter, they'll find ways blocked or opened as needed to get to the end goal of the GM.
> 
> You could also achieve the no-force by using many of the systems designed to create content as you play -- building on the outcomes of the last action.  This style of play means that content is created on the fly, and often according to player inputs, and that can rub people the wrong way.  A good example is the secret door.  A PC meets a blank wall.  They announce they're searching for a secret door, which is put to the mechanics.  If they succeed, there's a secret door there.  If they fail, there may be a secret door, but it's trapped/has monsters behind it/goes to a bad place and seals behind them/doesn't exist and guards show up/etc.  As you might have surmised, no one knows if there's a secret door in that wall until the mechanics resolve and then either the player gets their intent or the GM thwarts it (or you get some of both, depending on if the mechanics has a range of outcome).  This style of play really prevents all Force, mostly by making any application immediately obvious.  "I search for a secret door, success!"  "You don't find a secret door, but a closet with the Boogeyman!"  "Bob, darn it, we talked about this, you have to stop making everything about the Boogeyman, besides, I succeeded so there has to be a secret door here.  Play right, Bob."




I agree with everything save that the content-now styles preclude force.  A GM can still use force techniques by altering which outcomes deserve 'hard' or 'soft' results (for those unfamiliar 'hard' means with mechanical consequence; 'soft' means with foreshadowing/scene alteration without mechanical consequence) and scene framing. 

Consider the case where the GM had a bad dream the night before and really wants to emulate a scene where a dog turns into a tentacled horror and attacks the PCs.  The first problem is the group doesn't have a dog.  The GM introduces the dog and a player obliging attempts to befriend the animal but rolls abysmally earing a 'hard' outcome.  The GM narrates a soft outcome with looming dangers instead giving the player a second chance to befriend the dog.  The player still fails and the GM narrates a 'hard' outcome that somehow maintains the dog's presence so further attempts can be made.  Should these fail, he can always decide to introduce a different dog in another scene frame...

Note, I'm not saying all GMs do this.  I'm not even saying this is appropriate in the mechanics presented in those systems.  Illusionism and GM force are hard to stymie should the GM be determined to use them.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 18, 2020)

Nagol said:


> I agree with everything save that the content-now styles preclude force.  A GM can still use force techniques by altering which outcomes deserve 'hard' or 'soft' results (for those unfamiliar 'hard' means with mechanical consequence; 'soft' means with foreshadowing/scene alteration without mechanical consequence) and scene framing.



Well, no, because doing so does not alter or block player inputs but rather feeds on them.  This is an example of the GM using their judgement and having authority to introduce content, not Force.


> Consider the case where the GM had a bad dream the night before and really wants to emulate a scene where a dog turns into a tentacled horror and attacks the PCs.  The first problem is the group doesn't have a dog.  The GM introduces the dog and a player obliging attempts to befriend the animal but rolls abysmally earing a 'hard' outcome.  The GM narrates a soft outcome with looming dangers instead giving the player a second chance to befriend the dog.  The player still fails and the GM narrates a 'hard' outcome that somehow maintains the dog's presence so further attempts can be made.  Should these fail, he can always decide to introduce a different dog in another scene frame...
> 
> Note, I'm not saying all GMs do this.  I'm not even saying this is appropriate in the mechanics presented in those systems.  Illusionism and GM force are hard to stymie should the GM be determined to use them.



This may be Force, but not for the reasons that the GM used a hard move to introduce new fiction.  Instead, this may be Force if the introduction of the dog is outside the genre/assumptions of the game.  In these games, the GM isn't fully free to introduce scene framing elements but rather constrained to introduce elements that align with the player's intended action.  So, if introducing a dog is within genre and not against player established constraints, then this is fine.  If it is, there's a problem already, and it will be immediately apparent.  Similarly, if dogs turning into tentacled horrors is in genre and within the constraints of the player action failing, then it's fine.  If it's not, there's a problem and it will be immediately apparent.

For example, your above would be perfectly fine in a Cthulhu themed game as it fits all of the genre points and introducing of tentacled beast is well within expectations of player action failures.  It's not cool in a game about high school drama surrounding who's popular (there's a game like this).  If you introduce things outside of the genre and player established constraints, then there's a problem AND it's apparent.  If you do it inside, then this isn't Force, it's acceptable content introduction by the GM.

Notably, Force isn't adding things the GM likes, it's subverting player input to cause things the GM likes.  If the GM couldn't add things, ever, we'd be in a world of boring.


----------



## Numidius (Feb 18, 2020)

But if the Gm continues to add content to delay, or prevent, Players from reaching their destination, that is annoying, too. 

Also... Metaplot! Aaaarrghhh!!!


----------



## prabe (Feb 18, 2020)

Numidius said:


> But if the Gm continues to add content to delay, or prevent, Players from reaching their destination, that is annoying, too.




That sounds as though it could be Force. The party has figured out where they need to be, and even how to get there, but they have to do fifteen thousand other things first, because they need to level up (or whatever).


----------



## Nagol (Feb 18, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> Well, no, because doing so does not alter or block player inputs but rather feeds on them.  This is an example of the GM using their judgement and having authority to introduce content, not Force.
> 
> This may be Force, but not for the reasons that the GM used a hard move to introduce new fiction.  Instead, this may be Force if the introduction of the dog is outside the genre/assumptions of the game.  In these games, the GM isn't fully free to introduce scene framing elements but rather constrained to introduce elements that align with the player's intended action.  So, if introducing a dog is within genre and not against player established constraints, then this is fine.  If it is, there's a problem already, and it will be immediately apparent.  Similarly, if dogs turning into tentacled horrors is in genre and within the constraints of the player action failing, then it's fine.  If it's not, there's a problem and it will be immediately apparent.
> 
> ...




Adding the dog initially isn't Force.  Refusing to accept the mechanical outcome (outright failures should fail at what they're attempting) is Force.  Continually adding/updating an element until the game state hits the DM preference is illusionism/force.


----------



## prabe (Feb 18, 2020)

Nagol said:


> Adding the dog initially isn't Force.  Refusing to accept the mechanical outcome (outright failures should fail at what they're attempting) is Force.  Continually adding/updating an element until the game state hits the DM preference is illusionism/force.




One presumes that having the dog mutate and attack the PCs immediately after the forced roll wouldn't be force.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 18, 2020)

prabe said:


> One presumes that having the dog mutate and attack the PCs immediately after the forced roll wouldn't be force.




I'm assuming such would be normally acceptable as a scene, so you are correct.  Force is being applied to achieve that particular scene regardless of player choice or gambit outcome.   In effect, it is the same as having the castle at the end of whatever road the players choose.


----------



## prabe (Feb 18, 2020)

Nagol said:


> I'm assuming such would be normally acceptable as a scene, so you are correct.  Force is being applied to achieve that particular scene regardless of player choice or gambit outcome.   In effect, it is the same as having the castle at the end of whatever road the players choose.




Fair enough, presuming the characters are neither looking to find nor avoid the castle. I have less problem with deciding that party will (or might) encounter [thing] whichever way they go, if it's merely introducing content. Other folks have different preferences here, of course, and it's kinda a side alley in a thread already pockmarked with them.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 18, 2020)

prabe said:


> Fair enough, presuming the characters are neither looking to find nor avoid the castle. I have less problem with deciding that party will (or might) encounter [thing] whichever way they go, if it's merely introducing content. Other folks have different preferences here, of course, and it's kinda a side alley in a thread already pockmarked with them.




If the players have preferences about castle discovery, that simply changes the visibility of the application.  If the players are looking for it, its visibility goes down.  If the players are trying to avoid it and find it anyway, the application of force becomes more obvious.

I don't think insertion of content in a neutral manner as a consequence typically is force or illusionism.  It becomes one or both when the insertion fulfils a ulterior desire of the GM especially when the GM dissembles about the reason for the insertion and/or ignores mechanical results that would preclude the content he favours.


----------



## prabe (Feb 18, 2020)

Nagol said:


> If the players have preferences about castle discovery, that simply changes the visibility of the application.  If the players are looking for it, its visibility goes down.  If the players are trying to avoid it and find it anyway, the application of force becomes more obvious.
> 
> I don't think insertion of content in a neutral manner as a consequence typically is force or illusionism.  It becomes one or both when the insertion fulfils a ulterior desire of the GM especially when the GM dissembles about the reason for the insertion and/or ignores mechanical results that would preclude the content he favours.




That looks about like my feelings.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 18, 2020)

@Nagol

This seems to be related to the conversation that we had years ago about the Dungeon World play excerpt?

1)  I can go over that excerpt again if it would help folks understand your contention about that particular excerpt (and my disagreement)?  I'll briefly go over the framework for that excerpt below.

2)  I agree that a GM who continuously makes fiction-disregarding soft moves when a hard move should be made is probably deploying Force.  However, I think that should be VERY clear during play and certainly clear post-mortem.

3)  I think the Blades in the Dark tech of Position and Effect is an improvement on the PBtA engine because the procedural generation of Position and Effect (and therefore status) in terms of mechanical consequence is helpful.  However, that doesn't mean that I think AW and DW aren't trivially navigable simply by Following the Fiction, Make a Move that Follows, Fill Their Lives with Danger/Adventure, Bark Forth Apocalypta/Bring Dungeon World to Life, Play to Find out What Happens.

Just briefly concerning the schematics of that excerpt, using Blades in the Dark tech for post-mortem:

* The *Parley *move with the dog would have been *Controlled Position and Standard Effect. *

The reason why *Controlled *would have been the position was because (a) the dog was traumatized and the players managed to save it from certain death prior (it fled into the snowy wilderness night when things went to hell), (b) the dog was starving and old (likely unable to hunt effectively) so the show of food as the offering for Parley should be effective, (c) the PC involved in the Parley was a Ranger (who wasn't only good at being a Ranger general but could speak with animals specifically).

* So as such, when the move generated a 6- on the result (Failure and mark xp), Make a Move That Follows and following all of the game's principles seemed to me that there wasn't a Hard move that would honor prior play and make much sense. 

The dog attacking her doesn't make sense (from the fiction nor from what would have been, in Blades parlance, a Controlled Position) mechanically, nor prior fiction, and it wouldn't be dangerous (the PC could trivially slaughter the dog).

So how would I resolve all of those things in concert?

I had two lingering soft moves out in the wild that were put into the gamestate prior and hadn't had an opportunity to actualize:


The brutal blizzard.
The herd of psychotic, stampeding reindeer.

I deployed the latter because it felt like it resolved all of the above neatly (respected the gamestate, respected the prior fiction, was consequentially dangerous enough that something interesting should happen and possibly snowball and easily turn into a lethal scenario for both she and the dog).

The Ranger then looks around to orient herself in the encroaching darkness and consider her options (*Discern Realities*) and gets a 10+ (which expands her options for dealing with the problem).  This would be *Risky *Position (normal).

The old dog wants her treat, but is terrified and freaked out by the oncoming thunderous hooves of the herd that are heading this way in the almost full-dark at this point.  She runs nervously around the legs of the Ranger.  The Ranger decides the nearby snowdrift (one of her options from DR) is the best option for them.  She grabs the dog and jumps into the drift, collapsing the roof on them to hide from the stampede.  *Defy Danger @ 7-9 so Success Cost/Complication/Hard Choice.  This would be Risky Position (normal).*

I decided the Hard Choice would be that the freaked out old dog squirmed like crazy and kicked her quiver, spilling the majority of her arrows (leaving her with 1 Ammo remaining). She could either gather them and make a stand against the herd or sacrifice them and get in her the hidey-hole in the snow drift.

She chose the latter.  For an Archer Ranger who can't resupply or forage arrows in a barren tundra, that is a hell of a loss in Dungeon World.  But she wanted the dog.  So down to her last few arrows.

I assume there (I can't recall from our conversation) that you felt that I should have created some kind of Hard Choice that would have put the dog in imminent peril?  At the time, that just didn't feel like that made sense so it wouldn't have been "A Move That Followed" and still honored her success (but with complication) in the Defy Danger; player gets some of what they want.  If I made the old dog incoherently just bolt right for the reindeer herd or out into the dark wilderness...that basically feels like a 6- result where the player gets none of what they want.

So they hide, the Ranger loses 1 Ration in feeding the dog while they're hidden, and the Ranger loses 3 Ammo (so 1 left).

At that point, I figured that as the Ranger had given it what it wanted (Food and Security), thus fully earned the dogs trust so *another Parley move didn't make sense (where a Cost would still need to be in contention*).  They go back to the abandoned snowy village and settle in for the night and deal with trying to communicate in the morning.



That is the best I can remember it.  We can do the post-mortem again as that is typically helpful to these conversations. 

I'll let you read it again and let us know what you didn't like again and what felt like Force to you.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 18, 2020)

I think, if I recollect, you felt like any/some/all of the following should have been true:

1)  The Parley 6- at the beginning should have meant that the dog was no longer available to the PC (basically from a Desperate Position in Blades terms) rather than it triggering a snowballing conflict that may have made the dog unattainable.

2)  The Defy Danger 7-9 should have had a different Cost or Choice that was related to the dog being lost.

3)  A Defy Danger Charisma should have been required at the end to get the dog to go back to the settlement with the Ranger (another Parley move just doesn't make sense to me as the Ranger has all the leverage and the dog should have been a willing, trust-worthy party at that point).


----------



## Nagol (Feb 18, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> @Nagol
> 
> This seems to be related to the conversation that we had years ago about the Dungeon World play excerpt?




What can I say?  I'm a creature of habit.  It wasn't meant to be a criticism of the encounter so much as it is one where I remember discussing the issue before.  I have no doubt the situation that developed did so because of pure motives.  To me it points out an area of weakness in DW where force and illusionism can be used by GMs that wish to use those techniques.



> 1)  I can go over that excerpt again if it would help folks understand your contention about that particular excerpt (and my disagreement)?  I'll briefly go over the framework for that excerpt below.
> 
> 2)  I agree that a GM who continuously makes fiction-disregarding soft moves when a hard move should be made is probably deploying Force.  However, I think that should be VERY clear during play and certainly clear post-mortem.




Many uses of force become obvious in post-mortem.  I tend to agree an ill-skilled GM will be reasonably caught trying to mess with the play this way.  Much like an ill-skilled GM is caught using force in other systems.

It's not just the continual use of soft moves in place of hard moves though, it is the disregarding of failures taking the gambit off the table and/or the continual attempt to reintroduce an element that previously failed.  These are all mechanisms the GM can bypass to introduce content he desires.



> 3)  I think the Blades in the Dark tech of Position and Effect is an improvement on the PBtA engine because the procedural generation of Position and Effect (and therefore status) in terms of mechanical consequence is helpful.  However, that doesn't mean that I think AW and DW aren't trivially navigable simply by Following the Fiction, Make a Move that Follows, Fill Their Lives with Danger/Adventure, Bark Forth Apocalypta/Bring Dungeon World to Life, Play to Find out What Happens.




Although I dearly want to run/play BitD, no group I'm associated with has been willing.  So any criticism of the system I may have is not reliable.  My general contention is the powers of scene framing and consequence assignment are capable of leading groups to exactly where the GM wishes them to go should the GM have covert intent.  This can be mitigated through establishing very strong rules wrt how failures will be treated and the principle that an element can only be introduced once.



> Just briefly concerning the schematics of that excerpt, using Blades in the Dark tech for post-mortem:
> 
> * The Parley move with the dog would have been Controlled Position and Standard Effect.
> 
> ...




There is almost always a way to be true to failure.  If there isn't, should there even be a check?  The dog running off into the frozen waste followed by a pitiful yelping and the emergence of a new threat swallowing its remains would be one.



> I had two lingering soft moves out in the wild that were put into the gamestate prior and hadn't had an opportunity to actualize:
> 
> 
> The brutal blizzard.
> ...




Again, I don't think you specifically attempted to apply force to the encounter.  But if you were the sort of GM who would, it's a spot where the players may have been able to detect that force.  Especially in the use of soft responses to hard failure and the ability to rescue the dog despite the hard failure at establishing peaceful relations.

I tend to be more... harsh? A failure removes further attempts to use that gambit and generally makes the specific opportunity pursued unreachable.  The fact the Ranger failed during the Parley would have removed further non-combat opportunity with the dog unless and until the situation was completely changed.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 18, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> I think, if I recollect, you felt like any/some/all of the following should have been true:
> 
> 1)  The Parley 6- at the beginning should have meant that the dog was no longer available to the PC (basically from a Desperate Position in Blades terms) rather than it triggering a snowballing conflict that may have made the dog unattainable.
> 
> ...




I tend to agree with the first 2.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 18, 2020)

pemerton said:


> The _choreographed novel_ [my emphasis] involves a setting already thought out by the referee and presented to the players; it may be any of the above settings [ship, location or world], but contains predetermined elements. As such, the referee has already developed characters and setting which bear on the group's activities, and they are guided gently to the proper locations. Properly done, the players never know that the referee has manipulated them to a fore-ordained goal




Or the GM could just open with
Tell the PCs what to do, give them the briefing then leave it up to them. No illusionism required.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 18, 2020)

Nagol said:


> I tend to agree with the first 2.




I took a quick look at what the Failure example of Sway w/ Controlled Position in Blades.  I'm curious what you think.



> 1-3 (Now Risky Position): He shakes his head the whole time you’re talking, making a face. “You’re right, I know! But I can’t do anything! You have to tell Vale to let me back into her crew. Then I’ll be safe, and I can do this for you.”




Neither DW nor AW (a) has codified moves for 6- on a Parley/Seduce or Manipulate and (b) neither comes with any examples (so you just have to follow the GMing agenda and principles to derive it).

Blades release post-dated this game in Dungeon World (which I think took place around 2014), but this looks like the formula I followed here:

1)  Subsequent Position for Action becomes Risky.

2)  The formula is an arrangement of "if you do x for me (related to the leverage inherent to the Sway move), then I'll do y for you".  The "x" in the dog:Ranger interaction was "give me food and security" and the "y" was "I'll accompany you."

That looks to me to be pretty much in lockstep with how I handled it.



However, on the Defy Danger complication:



> The dog running off into the frozen waste followed by a pitiful yelping and the emergence of a new threat swallowing its remains would be one.




The first part I could definitely get behind; the dog runs off yelping into the dark, frozen wilderness (thereby making an audible target of itself for predators to follow it, complicating the Ranger's goal and endangering its life).

That is absolutely a good way to go and may have yielded a more interesting snowball effect.

However, if I'm a player there and you outright kill the dog on a move I've had success on where my intent in this conflict/scene is "recover the dog", I feel like you've effed me to be honest.  That looks like a Hard move on a 7-9.

Thoughts on those two?


----------



## Nagol (Feb 18, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> I took a quick look at what the Failure example of Sway w/ Controlled Position in Blades.  I'm curious what you think.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The first is hard to fully interpret. Is it a simple refusal with a hint the situation can be reset by accomplishing the offered goal or is it a contract/promise that if you do X Y will follow?  I'd be happy providing the first.  "Nope you failed.  You can't try again until the situation substantially changes -- here's one change I'd consider substantial enough".

On the second, I agree it'd be a Richard move to kill the dog on a partial success.  There's no "yes but" or "yes and" it's just a messy version of 'no'.  Removing the dog on an outright failure would be fully in line, I think.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 19, 2020)

These are from the article "Campaigning Champions" by Aaron Allston, in the Champions supplement Champions II (1982). Champions (1981) has wargame-style rules. There's nothing to promote, for example, the dramatic turnarounds and rising action of comic book superhero battles. Once one side starts to lose they tend to keep on losing.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 19, 2020)

TwoSix said:


> It's only force, at least in my understanding, when the GM is introducing material with the expectation of steering the game towards a specific later state.  It's the GM framing gamestate B after A, because they've already thought of a cool gamestate C.




You mean like creating a dungeon and inserting it into the world and giving the PC's ample opportunity to hear about it in the hopes that they will find it interesting and explore it.  From my understanding of the definition posted - that would constitute forcing of the illusionism variety.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 19, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> In my opinion, if the designer or the GM doesn't like the overall probability curve of one (or more) of the clocks, the answer is to iterate and redesign the curve, not curate out particular content produced by the content introduction machinery (which the players are interfacing with to make their general and system-relevant guile based decisions).



Everything else being equal that's good advice. But it's also hard! And if you use randomly-timed content introduction (ie wandering monsters) then there is always a chance that you will get improbably severe results even when the players haven't deserved the punishment thus inflicted.

In discussions of Cortex+ play (including in the Hacker's Guide) there is the suggestion that the GM not always build the best pool s/he can out of a Doom Pool roll if doing something else would better serve the trajectory of the game. Frankly that's a concession to weaknesses in the design of the Doom Pool as a system (it serves many different functions and it's hard to make all of them work all of the time) but maybe the designers just couldn't get it any better and still keep it workable.

I see that advice as somewhat similar to Gygax's advice about the wandering monsters - if the players don't deserve more punishment then don't roll (or ignore the result - same diff) even if the rules say you should. In neither case is it force (in my view), because in neither case is it adjusting or manipulating the outcomes of action resolution. (This is why I see Gygax's insistence on _not letting the PCs escape unnaturally _as key - because that would be subverting action resolution.)

As far as his comments about allowing the PC to be maimed rather than killed, as I said that's barely force because it's barely manipulation. To make it not be force at all, all you need is a rule (both 4e D&D and Prinve Valiant have versions of this) that says "If you want, zero hp can be some sort of incapacitation shot of death"). That's a pretty trivial change. And Gygax is very clear that this sort of thing should not be done so as to fundamentally alter what was at stake in play ("disinterest", "always give the monster an even break"). It's only removing death as the only failure state - but I don't think that's fundamental to classic skilled play D&D, as he says (pointing to the existence of resurrection magic).

Whether any of these things is good or bad GMing is a different matter, but I think the nuance with which Gygax addresses them is one of his high points in grasping what is going on with his game design and where it does or doesn't have capacity to give a little bit. It's much more subtle than I sometimes see suggested when people just present the quote about it being a GM's prerogative to change or ignore a die result. And it's more subtle than the AD&D 2nd ed passage that was presented upthread.



Manbearcat said:


> In my opinion, this is why both Moldvay Basic and Torchbearer are both just fundamentally better game's than Gygax's D&D (when it comes to challenge-based gaming).



I don't think Moldvay is fundamentally different on this particular issue. There is a remark somewhere in there about fudging, I think, though I can't recall the details.

Maiming rather than death is largely irrelevant in Moldvay because at levels 1 to 3 there is no regeneration magic and hence no recovery from maiming any more than from death. As far as the wandering monster issue is concerned, exactly the same thing can happen - ie there is a chance that a very well played party might nevertheless be absolutely hammered by wandering monsters while heading through the dungeon to their exploration goal, putting their punishment severely out of whack with what they deserve. Moldvay has no better way to correct this problem than Gygax does.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 19, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> It seems to me that the only way for a DM to not use forcing as described above is to create a fully procedural world where the dice dictate every thing.  How is anything else not forcing?



Most straightforwardly: present content without a "fore-ordained goal"; and then introduce new fictional content as an output of action resolution rather than to undermine or manipulate the outcomes of action resolution.

Apocalypse World is a terrific example of this in its presentation of the rules and procedures for play. Classic Traveller (where the OP quote comes from) can be played this way - I know, I'm currently doing it in a campaign - but the books aren't quite up there with AW as far as instructional text is concerned! There are somewhat oblique remarks in the 1977 version that I think show some awareness of the issue, but that's about it.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 19, 2020)

Nagol said:


> Adding the dog initially isn't Force.  Refusing to accept the mechanical outcome (outright failures should fail at what they're attempting) is Force.  Continually adding/updating an element until the game state hits the DM preference is illusionism/force.



I agree it's force in the way you describe. I don't think it's likely to be illusionism, however - what you describe seems to me like it will be pretty transparent at the table.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 19, 2020)

prabe said:


> One presumes that having the dog mutate and attack the PCs immediately after the forced roll wouldn't be force.





Nagol said:


> I'm assuming such would be normally acceptable as a scene, so you are correct.  Force is being applied to achieve that particular scene regardless of player choice or gambit outcome.   In effect, it is the same as having the castle at the end of whatever road the players choose.



I'll put the castle example to one side  . . . because in your example the players have rejected the dog and/or failed with it.

I think having the dog sprout into tentacles counts as force (guidance/manipulation to a foreordained goal) if the established fiction ("soft moves", and/or in some systems PCs' Beliefs/Traits/Aspects etc) hasn't foreshadowed/anticipated it. Obviously much depends on the nuances of the particular case.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 19, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> You mean like creating a dungeon and inserting it into the world and giving the PC's ample opportunity to hear about it in the hopes that they will find it interesting and explore it.  From my understanding of the definition posted - that would constitute forcing of the illusionism variety.



I've pondered on this for a day, re-reading the OP and trying to remove myself from the strong definition of Force presented by @Manbearcat (which follows my understanding), and I that I can't tell if it is or isn't.  And, I think the operator here is what's present in Manbearcat's definition but missing in @pemerton's, and that's the idea of subverting or defeating player input.

The passage in the OP, and much of @pemerton's responses seem to flow from the idea that prepared outcomes are Force.  In that much, I agree, but what's odd is that pemerton's talk doesn't differentiate between legitimately GM introduced material and Forcefully introduced material.  Your dungeon, that's then "advertised" in play, seems to fall under pemerton's conjecture of 'gentle guidance'.  Or, at least, I see no operation in the OP that can tell if it does or doesn't.  Your dungeon, even "advertised," does NOT fall under Manbearcat's definition, because there's not overriding or altering of player input.  

So, I'd really like @pemerton to clearly state whether he thinks that your example is Force or not.  He partly answered your question only in the sense that he provided a different path from procedural creation, but didn't respond as to whether your example fits his conception of Force.  Now, after trying to think it through myself, I'd like to hear the answer as well.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 19, 2020)

pemerton said:


> Everything else being equal that's good advice. But it's also hard! And if you use randomly-timed content introduction (ie wandering monsters) then there is always a chance that you will get improbably severe results even when the players haven't deserved the punishment thus inflicted.
> 
> In discussions of Cortex+ play (including in the Hacker's Guide) there is the suggestion that the GM not always build the best pool s/he can out of a Doom Pool roll if doing something else would better serve the trajectory of the game. Frankly that's a concession to weaknesses in the design of the Doom Pool as a system (it serves many different functions and it's hard to make all of them work all of the time) but maybe the designers just couldn't get it any better and still keep it workable.
> 
> ...



"Barely force" is a subjective opinion, which appears to mean "force I'm okay with."  I don't think discussion of game concepts is benefitted by defining a tool or concept by whether or not we're okay with a specific application of it.  In other words, a definition of Force that exists only when it's criteria are met AND we're okay with it is not a useful definition of Force.  The latter half renders the entire discussion a matter of competing opinion without any objective measures.  If we, instead, define the term and stick to it, even if it means we're defining play we're okay with that term, then we have a useful definition and a useful discussion.  I'm perfectly fine with dropping a wandering monster roll in some circumstances, but that doesn't mean that I'm ignoring the mechanical structure of the game and my prior, demonstrated routines of play, to achieve a goal that I'd prefer.  That's Force.  The players have chosen to be in a situation (or are there through consequences of previous choices) that require a wandering monster check.  If I, as GM, decide the outcome of the game is better if I ignore that player created input and don't use the mechanics, then I'm using Force.  I'm okay with knowing that AND still using the Force because the game system is fighting against the play experience the table prefers.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 19, 2020)

This is a comparison of word count using the digital copies of the 1st and 2nd edition Dungeon Master's Guides released by Wizards of the Coast. The 2nd edition is actually the 1995 revised version but it seems very similar to the 1989 one.

I think we can conclude from this that, despite the similarity in rules, there is a major change of emphasis between 1st ed and 2nd ed.

2nd edition:
story = 27
drama/dramatic = 19
plot = 13
entertain/entertaining/entertainment = 9
storyline = 4
storyteller = 2

challenge/challenges/challenged = 18

1st edition:
story = 1 (in Mike Carr’s foreword)
drama/dramatic/dramatically = 4
plot = 3 (one is in reference to NPC plots, the other two to the effects of paranoia)
entertain/entertaining/entertainment = 4
storyline = 0
storyteller = 0

challenge/challenges = 24


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 19, 2020)

pemerton said:


> Most straightforwardly: present content without a "fore-ordained goal"; and then introduce new fictional content as an output of action resolution rather than to undermine or manipulate the outcomes of action resolution.
> 
> Apocalypse World is a terrific example of this in its presentation of the rules and procedures for play. Classic Traveller (where the OP quote comes from) can be played this way - I know, I'm currently doing it in a campaign - but the books aren't quite up there with AW as far as instructional text is concerned! There are somewhat oblique remarks in the 1977 version that I think show some awareness of the issue, but that's about it.




On some level though - introducing new content for your players to interact with is itself a foreordained goal.  You placed the content there with the goal of them interacting with it.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 19, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> On some level though - introducing new content for your players to interact with is itself a foreordained goal.  You placed the content there with the goal of them interacting with it.




Not foreordained  though.  I'd say between 50% and 75% of the adventure hooks placed in my D&D game get no nibbles.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 19, 2020)

Nagol said:


> Not foreordained  though.  I'd say between 50% and 75% of the adventure hooks placed in my D&D game get no nibbles.




I would say that your not looking at this big picture enough. If you create a world with 5 adventure hooks then your forordained goal is to get them to interact with an adventure hook. You may not particularly care which - but you still have a foreordained goal that you are going to make happen - either by escalating the stakes on some of those hooks after they disregard or by introducing more hooks till they finally bite on one.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 19, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> I would say that your not looking at this big picture enough. If you create a world with 5 adventure hooks then your forordained goal is to get them to interact with an adventure hook. You may not particularly care which - but you still have a foreordained goal that you are going to make happen - either by escalating the stakes on some of those hooks after they disregard or by introducing more hooks till they finally bite on one.




I think you are misusing forordained.  If X is foreordained then X will happen.  My goal may be to get them involved with those plots.  It is no more foreordained than the me buying a car from a salesman when I walk into a dealership.  After all, he has a goal to sell me a car.

Also, that's typically not my actual goal -- my goal is to provide a variety of experiences the players may choose between.

Now if instead everywhere the PCs go, they hear the same rumours about the plots and the plots keep trying to engage the PCs despite the players signaling they don't care and the PCs keep finding themselves at the entrance to the dungeon ("sleepwalking" or "random teleport accident" or "space curves weirdly here") then force is being applied.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 19, 2020)

Nagol said:


> I think you are misusing forordained.  If X is foreordained then X will happen.  My goal may be to get them involved with those plots.  It is no more foreordained than the me buying a car from a salesman when I walk into a dealership.  After all, he has a goal to sell me a car.
> 
> Also, that's typically not my actual goal -- my goal is to provide a variety of experiences the players may choose between.




So your goal (Or one of your goals) isn’t that they eventually choose one of the adventure hooks you introduce?


----------



## Nagol (Feb 19, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> So your goal (Or one of your goals) isn’t that they eventually choose one of the adventure hooks you introduce?




I have several goals.  One of which is to present opportunities the players can follow.  Another is to evolve the  presented world in plausible ways.  A third Is to have the world react to player choice.

The adventure hooks are there to give the players something to react to and make choices about.  I don't care if the PCs involve themselves in any individual hook.  Heck they can avoid each and every one and proactively decide to do something else should they wish.  The world will continue to evolve taking into account their choices.


----------



## prabe (Feb 19, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> I would say that your not looking at this big picture enough. If you create a world with 5 adventure hooks then your forordained goal is to get them to interact with an adventure hook. You may not particularly care which - but you still have a foreordained goal that you are going to make happen - either by escalating the stakes on some of those hooks after they disregard or by introducing more hooks till they finally bite on one.




I think most of the thread has considered Force/Illusionism to be in play only if the GM had a specific plot or event or character in mind. Giving the characters a menu to choose from, in the expectation they'll choose one of the items thereon, doesn't feel like either Force or Illusionism, as they've been used heretofore. If the idea is for the characters to have adventures, setting up adventures for them to have is pre-adventure framing, which is more likely to be part of the (possibly implicit) social contract at the table. Now, if the players/characters reject all the options on the menu, there might be some other problem.


----------



## GrahamWills (Feb 19, 2020)

Reading this thread, it is hard to distinguish it from it from the many others before it except that we’re replacing “railroading” with “force”. Those discussions went nowhere as it seems to boil down to player preferences. 

some people want a strong “let the dice fall” aesthetic, where the GM’s job is to set up situations that he believes are fair, and then to adjudicate them impassively, not preferring the player controlled characters over his own.
some people want a strong “make the best story possible” aesthetic, where the GM’s job is to modify the scenario in play, and ignore or adapt rules so as to enhance the scene.
many people live somewhere in between.
I can’t honestly see this discussion being any different. Is the thought that rebranding “railroading” as “GM Force” will make it more likely people will admit that they use it a lot, and that it works well for them?

Or is this just going to rehash the usual simulation vs. narrative preference that explains why one group lets a monster crit three times in a row and kill a beloved character, enjoying the drama and the knowledge that every fight could be deadly, and another group is happy when the GM says that a sudden mist arises making it hard to leave the building, because they know there is a cool scene waiting for them in the inn?


----------



## pemerton (Feb 19, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> what's present in Manbearcat's definition but missing in @pemerton's, and that's the idea of subverting or defeating player input.
> 
> The passage in the OP, and much of @pemerton's responses seem to flow from the idea that prepared outcomes are Force.  In that much, I agree, but what's odd is that pemerton's talk doesn't differentiate between legitimately GM introduced material and Forcefully introduced material.  Your dungeon, that's then "advertised" in play, seems to fall under pemerton's conjecture of 'gentle guidance'.  Or, at least, I see no operation in the OP that can tell if it does or doesn't.  Your dungeon, even "advertised," does NOT fall under Manbearcat's definition, because there's not overriding or altering of player input.



I think I already posted that, to me, the dungeon example is like Gygax's secret door example except less likely to be illusionistic (because as @FrogReaver presents it there is no pretend/ignored check). (EDIT: apparently I didn't actually post that post - see further below).

Upthread I said of the secret door example:



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> Gygax's suggestion about a secret door _is _a type of guiding or manipulating, I think, but again barely. It's always open to the players to just ignore the door they discover, and - under his precepts - the GM has no device for getting them there. Notice that he _doesn't _suggest, say, using wandering monsters to chase the PCs through the door they've discovered.



I haven't changed my mind on that since posting it. The GM making something salient in this way is a type of guiding but (as I elaborate upon below) is barely so.

The _dungeon _parallel to wandering monsters chasing the PCs through the secret door would be the (first?) DL module where the dragon armies chase the PCs to Pax Tharsis (sp? right name?). That is force, and more than barely so. Depending on context and details it may or not be illusionism.

I say _more than barely so _because it is clear manipulation, with the intention of driving particular action declarations ("We go this way"). I will leave it up to @Manbearcat to explain how it counts as force under his description of that phenomenon (I'm pretty confident that he will characterise it as force).



Ovinomancer said:


> "Barely force" is a subjective opinion, which appears to mean "force I'm okay with.



That's not what is intended. Force comes in degrees, both for literal physical forces and more metaphoric/analogous GM decision-making forces.

When I say _barely force _I mean that the degree of guidance or manipulation is very small. The discussion just above illustrates the point: saying "Here's a thing you're welcome to check out" is not really manipulation, and is about the smallest amount of guidance that can be given while giving any at all. Whereas "Here comes the dragon army - the only escape route is that way!" is strong guidance, and manipulation also: it is intended to allow room for only one viable action declaration, namely, W_e go that way._



Ovinomancer said:


> I'm perfectly fine with dropping a wandering monster roll in some circumstances, but that doesn't mean that I'm ignoring the mechanical structure of the game and my prior, demonstrated routines of play, to achieve a goal that I'd prefer.  That's Force.  The players have chosen to be in a situation (or are there through consequences of previous choices) that require a wandering monster check.



I don't think this is the right analysis of what Gygax describes.

Wandering monsters aren't an element of action resolution. They're what @Manbearcat has called a "clock", which is (as best I know) a piece of PbtA terminology.

In Gygax's D&D the function of the clock is to punish poor decision-making (ie unskilled play) - wasting time or making noise - by extra pointless encounters which either suck rations or treasure or spells to avoid, or suck hit points and/or spells to defeat. If the players play well and don't dither, and the passage of time is purely due to their efficient travel from the dungeon entrance to the part of the dungeon they have prepared to tackle next (and this is exactly the scenario that Gygax describes on p 9 of his DMG) then the clock _isn't doing its job_ if the party gets hit unrelentingly by wandering monsters. That becomes arbitrary punishment.

In Apocalypse World, Vincent Baker says the following about managing clocks (p 143):

Countdown clocks are both descriptive and prescriptive. Descriptive: when something you’ve listed happens, advance the clock to that point. Prescriptive: when you advance the clock otherwise, it causes the things you’ve listed. Furthermore, countdown clocks can be derailed: when something happens that changes circumstances so that the countdown no longer makes sense, just scribble it out.​
Gygax's advice about wandering monsters is about keeping the descriptive and prescriptive aspects of the "clock" in synch. I don't think it's presented as clearly - either in the core mechanic or in this advice around it - as Baker does for AW, but I think we can still make reasonable sense of what Gygax is saying

Now if Gygax had a "say 'yes'" element to his game, he wouldn't need this workaround for his wandering monster rules, because you wouldn't start rolling for them until the PCs have gone through the already-mapped-and-explored bits of the dungeon to the new bit they want to check out. But he doesn't (and to some extent didn't want to - see @Manbearcat's comments about the secondary, simulationst role of wandering monsters as dungeon ecology).

This goes to @Manbearcat's point about making the game better - sure, that's good advice, but sometimes the product just needs to be shipped! So we get 4e's skill challenge rules which need a few extra bells-and-whistles to really work (some are in the DMG2, some in the Rules Compendium). We get the MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic Doom Pool, which is pacing, GM resource for action resolution, and the opposition for otherwise unopposed checks (including most healing/recovery actions) all in one, and the wonkiness that can produce which produces the advice that the GM should sometimes not optimise his/her doom pool rolls.

Done in accordance with the relevant principles and these workarounds won't stop being clunky, but I don't think they count as force - they're not manipulating or guiding towards a predetermined outcome.

EDIT: Here's the post I wrote earlier about the dungeon example - apparently it didn't go live:



FrogReaver said:


> You mean like creating a dungeon and inserting it into the world and giving the PC's ample opportunity to hear about it in the hopes that they will find it interesting and explore it. From my understanding of the definition posted - that would constitute forcing of the illusionism variety.



This seems very similar to Gygax's example of the secret door that I posted and commented on upthread.

If one takes the view that it's force (if so, it's very weak as the guidance/manipulation is pretty minimal) in the case you mention it's not illusionism: the players know exactly what the GM is doing! (Gygax's example may be illusionism if the players don't realise that the detect-secret-doors-roll was toyed with by the GM.)


----------



## pemerton (Feb 19, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> On some level though - introducing new content for your players to interact with is itself a foreordained goal.  You placed the content there with the goal of them interacting with it.



I would call that the goal of _playing a RPG._ It's what everyone turned up to do - have their PCs do stuff in the fiction, which at the table means the players engaging with content presented by the GM.

That doesn't mean the outcome of play - the resulting content and trajectory of the fiction - is foreordained.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 19, 2020)

Nagol said:


> Now if instead everywhere the PCs go, they hear the same rumours about the plots and the plots keep trying to engage the PCs despite the players signaling they don't care and the PCs keep finding themselves at the entrance to the dungeon ("sleepwalking" or "random teleport accident" or "space curves weirdly here") then force is being applied.



I would see this as a variant on the dragon armies driving the PCs before them to Pax Tharsas (sp? again).


----------



## pemerton (Feb 19, 2020)

GrahamWills said:


> Reading this thread, it is hard to distinguish it from it from the many others before it except that we’re replacing “railroading” with “force”.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I can’t honestly see this discussion being any different



My OP pointed to a particular piece of text from a revised version of a classic RPG, which was quite absent from the original version, as (i) showing a very clear statement of what it means to use force ("guidance", "manipulation") in an illusionistic way ("properly done, the players never know"), and (ii) illustrating a trend in design and understanding of RPGs and RPGing.

@Doug McCrae's excellent posts with excerpts from other relevant texts have, in my view, added support to (ii) by showing various versions and variants of (i) in those texts.

I don't think most ENworlders would regard what the Traveller Book calls a "choreographed novel" as railroading; at least, no more railroading than a typical AP. I would regard it as railroading, but most other posters seem to find my use of that term over-inclusive. I am simply pointing out that advocating that sort of play is a real thing that emerges at a particular time relatively early in the RPG hobby, but not immediately.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 19, 2020)

Don’t have time to respond to other stuff, but I can say this for clarification:

*Force* is a singular instance of a thing.

*Railroading* is what happens to a campaign over time when Force is used sufficiently to co-opt a game’s trajectory for an extended duration.

This is why I like talking about Force rather than Railroading. Railroading has more variability/subjectivity involved whereas “1 unit of thing” is much easier to analyze.


----------



## GrahamWills (Feb 19, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> *Force* is a singular instance of a thing.
> 
> *Railroading* is what happens to a campaign over time when Force is used sufficiently to co-opt a game’s trajectory for an extended duration.




So if I run a scenario where I force the players to go to a certain town, force them to fight an enemy and force them to lose and be captured, and then force them to escape, but then I go back to my regular style of play afterwards, that would not be railroading in your definition?

Pretty sure most people would consider railroading a thing that can happen during a single session, and I'm not excited about re-defining well understood existing concepts to fit new ones, so I'll stick with the normal definition of railroading, and then the simplest definition of GM force would be a "a small unit of railroading".


----------



## GrahamWills (Feb 19, 2020)

pemerton said:


> > it is hard to distinguish it from it from the many others before it except that we’re replacing “railroading” with “force”
> 
> 
> 
> My OP pointed to a particular piece of text from a revised version of a classic RPG, which was quite absent from the original version, as (i) showing a very clear statement of what it means to use force ("guidance", "manipulation") in an illusionistic way ("properly done, the players never know"), and (ii) illustrating a trend in design and understanding of RPGs and RPGing.




Yup, no arguments there. Your OP showed, as you state (i) using force in an illusionistic way, and (ii) illustrating a trend. I'm not arguing with that. I'm just stating that I cannot distinguish between your OP and this:

------------------

These things - _illusionism_, _railroading - _are recurrent topics of conversation.

Here is a passage from The Traveller Book (1982, p 123); it is found in a description of types of scenario/adventure:

The _choreographed novel_ [my emphasis] involves a setting already thought out by the referee and presented to the players; it may be any of the above settings [ship, location or world], but contains predetermined elements. As such, the referee has already developed characters and setting which bear on the group's activities, and they are guided gently to the proper locations. Properly done, the players never know that the referee has manipulated them to a fore-ordained goal

The "gentle guidance" and "manipulation" referred to here are exactly instances of what gets labelled _railroading_. The aspiration that the players not know about it, if it is "properly done", is exactly what gets labelled _illusionism_. (It is consistent with illusionism that the players know, in general terms, that it is going on - eg it won't be spoiled by a player having read this passage in The Traveller Book. The aspiration for player ignorance is not in respect of the general phenomenon, but rather at the point of application of railroading.)

This passage has no equivalent in the 1977 version of Classic Traveller. The fact that it appears in this early-80s version of the rules is one instance of a more general trend: the 80s saw the beginning of the idea that this sort of approach is _what it means_ to play a RPG (especially to _roleplay _rather than "rollplay"); this idea was largely consolidated in the 90s. White Wolf/Storyteller system's "Golden Rule" is the most famous statement of it.

Some people like it as an approach to RPGing. Some don't. The point of this post is to try and show, by reference to a rather canonical piece of RPG text, that it is a real thing that emerges at a particular period in the history of RPGing.

------------------

I'm not arguing here that there hasn't been development of thought over railroading. I'm just seeing no difference between "railroading" and "gm force". Manbearcat suggests that the difference is that "railroading" must be campaign-affectign (which I reject as contrary to common usage), and that "gm force" is an instance of railroading, which seems fine, but not worth defining a term for.


----------



## prabe (Feb 19, 2020)

GrahamWills said:


> I'm not arguing here that there hasn't been development of thought over railroading. I'm just seeing no difference between "railroading" and "gm force". Manbearcat suggests that the difference is that "railroading" must be campaign-affectign (which I reject as contrary to common usage), and that "gm force" is an instance of railroading, which seems fine, but not worth defining a term for.




I think "railroading" is more like "illusionism," in that the story is always going to end up in the same place (which is different than deciding the story is going to *begin* in a specific place); "GM Force" is an instance of overriding either a player/character decision or a mechanical outcome. Fudging a roll is, I think, GM Force, but not (necessarily) railroading.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 19, 2020)

GrahamWills said:


> So if I run a scenario where I force the players to go to a certain town, force them to fight an enemy and force them to lose and be captured, and then force them to escape, but then I go back to my regular style of play afterwards, that would not be railroading in your definition?
> 
> Pretty sure most people would consider railroading a thing that can happen during a single session, and I'm not excited about re-defining well understood existing concepts to fit new ones, so I'll stick with the normal definition of railroading, and then the simplest definition of GM force would be a "a small unit of railroading".




To me, Force that controls an entire session of a campaign is absolutely railroading.

But others may have a different litmus test for how much Force is sufficient, x Force over interval y, for a game (plenty of games are one-shots, so a session can certainly equal campaign), which is why I talk about Force.

And you can call it whatever you’d like. You can call it Burgleymurgenfurgers. I’ve got no problem with whatever you want to call it.

I just think distinguishing Force from Railroading is useful and I think that the ability to have a functional conversation about the former is much easier than the latter.


----------



## GrahamWills (Feb 19, 2020)

Regarding the OP's premise, based on examination of the differences between 1977 and 1981 traveler:

_This passage has no equivalent in the 1977 version of Classic Traveller. The fact that it appears in this early-80s version of the rules is one instance of a more general trend: the 80s saw the beginning of the idea that this sort of approach is what it means to play a RPG (especially to roleplay rather than "rollplay"); this idea was largely consolidated in the 90s. White Wolf/Storyteller system's "Golden Rule" is the most famous statement of it._

I have quite a few older systems, and the main trend I see is actually saying anything at all about the GM's job! In the 1977 Traveller book 1, there is less said about the GM than about adapting the rules for antique weapons. It doesn't even require a GM to play the game (p2 suggest using random tables to replace the referee). So it can be hard to disambiguate the difference in *quality* of advice with *quantity* of advice.

Traveller though, is a good example for  change -- the original system is clearly all about simulation. The minimal description of the GM's role is to adjudicate rules. The statement is madethat a mechanical generator could replace them. Their role is clearly to adjudicate rules and create setting. 

So I do strongly agree that there became a change. But I don't think the change is one of introducing railroading as a concept. Rather the concept of story and narrative came into play, and the 1981 quote demonstrates that. The GM's role has broadened from creation and running a simulation to creating and running a story. One of the tools of that transition is railroading, as the quote displays, but rather than casting railroading as the primary change, I would say that's something that came along with the change to view the GM as having a role in creating story.

Here's another quote from 1981 on how to run the game, this time from Call of Cthulhu:

Charts for random encounters, wandering monsters and/or similar things are the bane of Call of Cthulhu. _In this game, each adventure should be carefully crafted to give players the maximum amount of thrills and chills ... _The Keeper should have firm control over what is happening, though he should remain flexible and capable of adapting to the circumstances of his players' plans and abilities. A good Keeper will always modify his original plan to accommodate his players" (emphasis in the original). 

This advice from Sandy is still excellent and is the way I like to play: Prepare scenarios to maximize the fun; be in charge, but always adapt to the player's actions. It stands as a  contrast to the Traveller 1977 advice ("run the simulation") and as far less heavy-handed than the 1981 Traveller advice ("move the players to the fore-ordained goal"). 

Call of Cthulhu was revolutionary because it got this shift right. Traveller clearly didn't -- it was trying to evolve to become narrative, but it chose a poor tool. Notice that the focus of the Traveller advice is on the GM -- the GM's plans, goals, etc. In Sandy Petersen's advice the focus is on the players -- design scenarios to maximize their fun and adapt to the player's plans.

I don't think Sandy would change his mind on this advice now. He's GM'd for me a few times in the last couple of years and this is still his approach's and it still works. For me, this is what changed in the 80s, and I'd credit CoC with being a major force: The GM's role was expanded beyond setting creator and rule adjudicator to also include the responsibility of helping the story be fun.

Railroading can help the story be fun, but it very often has the opposite effect. The Traveller 1981 advice is straight-up bad advice. It will rarely help. Fortunately other companies were able to articulate what makes a good GM much better, and our hobby evolved. I still have occasional fun playing the full "old school simulation" approach, but it's very much a retro-throwback thing. I'm happy with our evolution and glad that Sany's approach won out over Traveller's


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 19, 2020)

I think the other reason why I think we should separate the terms is this:

Is it possible to have an instance of GM Force (even just a singular one) without the session/campaign being an all-out Railroad?

It appears to me (given the other thread), that the overwhelming number of posters would say “yes” to that question.

If the answer is indeed “yes”, then isn’t  it useful to have distinguishing terms?


----------



## GrahamWills (Feb 19, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> Is it possible to have an instance of GM Force (even just a singular one) without the session/campaign being an all-out Railroad?
> ...
> If the answer is indeed “yes”, then isn’t  it useful to have distinguishing terms?




No actually, it does not appear to be useful.

You don't need to define terms for everything that is different; it's only useful if it makes comprehension easier. Since the only difference between railroading (a well know term) and "GM Force" is duration, it doesn't seem worth teaching the world that "GM force" is not a superhero group, when "railroading instance" works just as well.

Even for this thread, it's not helpful. The quote given by the OP is all about something that is happening all the time -- it's ongoing advice on how to do things in Traveller. It's specifically NOT "a singular" incident. So we're discussing "ongoing sets of instances of railroading" as the topic for the thread. For which by far the simpler term is, simply, "railroading".

I don't have any real objection to the term; if you want to use it in this thread, no worries there. My main concern was to make sure that you weren't thinking it any different form railroading, except in duration. I don't think it's worth giving a name for, but if this time next year people talk about "GM force" and not "railroading", then quote this post and make me look foolish!


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 19, 2020)

Some thoughts about the different ways in which Call of Cthulhu (1981) and James Bond 007 (1983) handle investigation.

Both games feature more than the average amount of investigation, particularly Call of Cthulhu. Why, given it’s the less investigation-oriented of the two does James Bond advise GMs to use Illusionism to help the PCs find clues, while Call of Cthulhu does not?

This is from James Bond 007 (also quoted upthread as part of a longer section in post #30):

If you were planning on putting the blueprints in the Major Villain’s safe, consider that the players may decide to go to his house instead and, not finding anything of interest, leave the area without finding the vital plans. Be prepared to put the plans in several places where the characters can find them – an office or home safe, the Major Villain’s briefcase, microfilm in the pipe stem, or just about anywhere.​
If this technique is not used in Call of Cthulhu what prevents its adventures coming to a juddering halt if the PCs fail to find a vital clue? The answer I think is that there are no vital clues in Call of Cthulhu because it uses non-linear adventures together with a sandbox campaign structure. There is more than one pathway to an important antagonist, location, or revelation, and the world is fairly high weirdness (a bit like D&D, though not as extreme) so there are many Mythos entities, cults and other strange and terrifying happenings to be investigated.

Each scenario in Call of Cthulhu should be organised like the layers of an onion. As the characters uncover one layer, they should discover another. These layers should go on and on until the players themselves decide that they are getting too deep and stop their investigations…​​Each layer of a scenario should present two or three choices as to where to proceed. The players should never be certain that they have delved into the bottom of a mystery…​​Two or more scenarios could also lead to the same dark secret… For example, the old Starry Wisdom cult chapel in Boston may lead the investigator to Innsmouth and the Esoteric Order of Dagon. Again, the investigator of swamp cults in Louisiana may find that they have connections to a similar cult in New England, centred in Innsmouth and titled the Esoteric Order of Dagon.​


----------



## Nagol (Feb 19, 2020)

Doug McCrae said:


> Some thoughts about the different ways in which Call of Cthulhu (1981) and James Bond 007 (1983) handle investigation.
> 
> Both games feature more than the average amount of investigation, particularly Call of Cthulhu. Why, given it’s the less investigation-oriented of the two does James Bond advise GMs to use Illusionism to help the PCs find clues, while Call of Cthulhu does not?
> 
> ...



First, I've been in CoC scenarios that did come to a juddering halt because we missed something vital.

Second, if the investigators miss something in th emiddle of the adventure, typically VERY BAD THINGS happen that either refocus attention or TPK.

Third, and I feel most vital, the two genres being emulated have very different feel.  CoC can afford long periods of quiet investigation and revisiting occult sources and scenes eventually leading to a discovery or breakthrough.  Action-adventure spy thrillers, not so much.  With James Bond, the adventure needs to flow like a James Bond movie if it is being true to its genre.  That provides a lot less wiggle room for the players to miss something or muck up.  Since the game system doesn't provide much in the way of player-side tools to move things along appropriately, genre emulation relies on GM force techniques.  Interestingly, Bond also relies on these sort of events when he gets stymied.  Think of the villains tossing his hook up out the hotel window, his hotel room blowing up while he has a tryst in another wing, or finding his paramour painted gold head to toe.


----------



## Numidius (Feb 20, 2020)

GrahamWills said:


> You don't need to define terms for everything that is different; it's only useful if it makes comprehension easier. Since the only difference between railroading (a well know term) and "GM Force" is duration, it doesn't seem worth teaching the world that "GM force" is not a superhero group, when "railroading instance" works just as well.




Isn't railroad a general term for a playstyle, more than the continuous use of Gm force? 
Like running a railroady adventure without using Force, or a sandboxy one actually using it in every encounter, but not limiting otherwise the direction of the exploration in more general terms?


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 20, 2020)

GM Force describes more than just instances of railroading. First, It better describes the actual action in terms of authority over the diagetic frame. Second, unlike railroading, force doesn't come burdened with an enormous load of baggage and isn't always a negative thing. A lot of people say 'railroading' and mean a ton of different things (but all think their definition is the only one) and the term is so negatively loaded it's almost impossible to use in polite conversation.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 20, 2020)

pemerton said:


> I would call that the goal of _playing a RPG._ It's what everyone turned up to do - have their PCs do stuff in the fiction, which at the table means the players engaging with content presented by the GM.




Sure but it's also true that can accurately be described as the foreordained goal of every DM.  

I think the problem is that there just isn't a good enough definition of forcing - one that can avoid the problems I'm pointing out with your OP's.



> That doesn't mean the outcome of play - the resulting content and trajectory of the fiction - is foreordained.




Either that can be taken so narrowly that nearly nothing is forcing or so broadly that nearly everthing is.  IMO


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 20, 2020)

pemerton said:


> When I say _barely force _I mean that the degree of guidance or manipulation is very small.




But barely force is still force.



> The discussion just above illustrates the point: saying "Here's a thing you're welcome to check out" is not really manipulation, and is about the smallest amount of guidance that can be given while giving any at all.




But the smallest amount of guidance possible is still guidance.



> Whereas "Here comes the dragon army - the only escape route is that way!" is strong guidance, and manipulation also: it is intended to allow room for only one viable action declaration, namely, W_e go that way._




I would counter that the DM introducing content is not forcing - even content where players appear to only have a single choice.  Players can always choose to make a final stand and die.  Not having an alternative good choice isn't the same as not having a choice at all.

Ultimately, I think all the concept of forcing is emotionally dependent.  The DM's job is to get the PC's into interesting scenarios where they can make meaningful decisions.  The issue is that players hate feeling like they got into something they didn't choose to get into.  Therefore, forcing is just the emotional response that occurs when a player doesn't feel like they had a choice of getting into something.

I think this is why forcing is so hard to discuss - because a DM can use the same techniques and sometimes it is forcing and sometimes it isn't and the difference solely dpeends on whether his action made the players feel they had no choice in getting into whatever scenario is occurring - which naturally varies from person to person.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 20, 2020)

GrahamWills said:


> In the 1977 Traveller book 1, there is less said about the GM than about adapting the rules for antique weapons.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Traveller though, is a good example for change -- the original system is clearly all about simulation. The minimal description of the GM's role is to adjudicate rules.



I don't think this is quite right. I've collated (for my own purposes) all the referee advice/direction from Classic Traveller 1977 edition (I have a 1978 printing). It's about 1400 words.

It is scattered throughout the 3 books - the editing in Classic Traveller is better (in my view) than in the AD&D books, but far from perfect. But put together it gives a relatively clear stateent of the role of the referee in establishing setting, framing situations, and adjudicating resolution.

Here is some of what is said about framing, which is relevant to the current thread:

* Book 3, p 8: [T]he referee should always feel free to impose worlds which have been deliberately (rather than randomly) generated. Often such planets will be devised specifically to reward or torment players.​​* Book 3, p 19: Some random encounters are mandated by the referee. [Ignore the oxymoron] . . . The referee is always free to impose encounters to further the cause of the adventure being played; in many cases, he actually has a responsibility to do so.​​* Book 2, p 36: The ship encounter table is used to determine the specific type of vessel which is met. This result may, and should, be superseded by the referee in specific situations, especially if a newly entered system is in military or civil turmoil, or involves other circumstances.​
None of this suggests the "choreographed novel". But it does suggest a proactive approach to framing. Not only that - as you say, some of it goes to simulation. But I don't think that that's all that's there.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 20, 2020)

pemerton said:


> I would call that the goal of _playing a RPG._ It's what everyone turned up to do - have their PCs do stuff in the fiction, which at the table means the players engaging with content presented by the GM.



On paper (or screen) that.s all fine.

However, several of the examples of Force/not-Force have largely revolved around _how said content is presented_, which makes things a bit more complicated.

If a GM is neutral - even coming across as almost uncaring - in the presentation of various elements, hooks, and whatever else, then there's little if any force involved.  But if the GM isn't neutral, or presents only one option, or drops big hints saying "go this way!", then you've got Force...which in this case does somewhat equate to railroading. (that said, a sandbox DM dropping hints to the effect of "don't go that way!" when the 1st-level party seem hell-bent on raiding the Tower of Endless Vampires is IMO perfectly acceptable use of Force; and if the players/PCs ignore the hints then so be it...  )



> That doesn't mean the outcome of play - the resulting content and trajectory of the fiction - is foreordained.



Depends on scale.

It may be somewhat foreordained on the large scale that the party's going to go through adventures A, B and C but how they approach any of them and-or what they do or accomplish in the process of going through them might not be foreordained at all.  Aso not foreordained might be how these three adventures will or won't string together into any sort of coherent story then or later - the DM's just gonna run 'em and see how things fall out.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 20, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> But barely force is still force.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



On review, and given how it's been presented in this thread, I agree with your assessment in terms of @pemerton-ian definition of Force.  It's not a very useable definition because it's subjective in application and appears to capture legitimate introduction of material by the GM.  It's a pornography definition, in that it's "I know it when I see it."

I disagree, however, that there isn't a useful definition available.  @Manbearcat's definition od Force (previously cited) where Force is the GM modifying or overriding player input in favor of a GM preferred outcome, does a good job of catching the 'thumb on the scale' concept.  It's neutral in analysis, in that it makes no judgement on the action, and it's easy to apply.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 20, 2020)

pemerton said:


> I think I already posted that, to me, the dungeon example is like Gygax's secret door example except less likely to be illusionistic (because as @FrogReaver presents it there is no pretend/ignored check). (EDIT: apparently I didn't actually post that post - see further below).
> 
> Upthread I said of the secret door example:
> 
> ...



I'm not sure that your definition of Force is useful, and I think this example shows it.  You've focused your definition on some long term goal -- the creation of a "choreographed novel" -- and that's fine, but that makes it only useful in the macro and blurs the lines between content introduction, as @FrogReaver presents, and actual direction of play.  I think, applied fairly, it says nothing at all about the Gygax example* of choosing to ignore mechanically mandated content introduction.  That's too small to be caught by the definition.

But, that's really the problem I have with it -- what counts as a "choreographed novel?"  In this thread, you seem to be taking the tack that any presentation of material with an expectation that it will feature in play fits, but I think that's not a very good definition of "choreographed novel".  It may fit the "choreographed" part, but not the "novel" part.  The novel part says, to me, that the story and outcomes are _authored_.  If I introduce a dungeon, and even make that the only option for play, I may have choreographed play into that dungeon, but if I let that dungeon play out as per the player inputs, and don't put my thumb on the scale for outcomes, then there's no way that's _authored_.

So, if we can separate "choreographed" from "novel" in the definition, and apply the terms independently to evaluate play, does this severing save the construction? I'd say no, because there's no clear line between how much authoring rises to the level of "novel."  If I ignore a wandering monster check that's mechanically required by the rules, but only occasionally, does this level of authoring no encounter rise to the level of "novel?"  I think you answer this above with no, or barely.  That's fair.  But, how many things do I need to author like this to achieve a substantial level?  Unclear, and, ultimately, subjective.  This makes the definition subjective, and, alongside already having to consider both choreography and authorship, I think not a very useful heuristic for judging play except at the "pornography" level, which is "I know it when I see it."  At that point, as another poster presented, it's not any different from just saying "railroading."

I think a definition, like @Manbearcat's, that evaluates moments in play is more useful.  We can still consider if such use is good or not, but it clearly categorizes the moment in play as Force or not Force.  We can still even reach your heuristic as sustained Force for the purpose of creating the GM's preferred story outcomes, rather than the in the moment resolution.

*  As an aside, I don't understand why you've made the argument that the Gygax wandering monster example may be exempt from consideration of Force because it's not part of an action resolution.  Firstly, because your definition makes no differentiation between action resolution and any other facet of the game, merely alluding to guidance, but also because I do see the wandering monster check as part of resolution, at a larger scale than an individual action.  Wandering monster checks mechanically occur when the play has passed a trigger point, which only occurs according to player input -- ie, if they take to long, they get a wandering monster check.  If the party takes too long, but you forgo a check because it seems unfair to you in the moment due to the party condition, then you're ignoring the mechanical resolution of a player input of taking too long.  I don't see how you sever wandering monster checks at set trigger points from the input of the players choosing to cross that trigger point through play.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 20, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> On review, and given how it's been presented in this thread, I agree with your assessment in terms of @pemerton-ian definition of Force.  It's not a very useable definition because it's subjective in application and appears to capture legitimate introduction of material by the GM.  It's a pornography definition, in that it's "I know it when I see it."
> 
> I disagree, however, that there isn't a useful definition available.  @Manbearcat's definition od Force (previously cited) where Force is the GM modifying or overriding player input in favor of a GM preferred outcome, does a good job of catching the 'thumb on the scale' concept.  It's neutral in analysis, in that it makes no judgement on the action, and it's easy to apply.




I would love to examine the alternate definition. Is the above the “official
“ definition?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 20, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> I would love to examine the alternate definition. Is the above the “official
> “ definition?



I know of no "offical" definition.  Who would be the authority? I prefer @Manbearcat's recent formulation, as it succinctly sums up my understanding of Force:

*Manipulation of the gamestate (typically covert) by a GM which nullifies (or in slightly more benign cases; modifies) player input in order to form or maintain a narrative that conforms to the GM's vision.*


----------



## chaochou (Feb 20, 2020)

I think for this discussion to continue to develop it needs to:

* Accept the @Manbearcat definition of force as being the dictation of outcomes by the GM

* Break the content of play down into smaller parts - in previous analysis setting, content, plot and situation have been used to illustrate that authority is not an all or nothing deal. Different elements can be under the control of different people, or shared, in various combinations without functional roleplaying breaking down. 

In this sense a dungeon can be created and populated without need to reference force. That is simply the GM-ing using agreed setting authority.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 20, 2020)

@chaochou  - That definition of force is pretty manifestly not simply equivalent to the dictation of outcomes by the GM (I think you're hanging a lot of emphasis on 'dictation' there). Part of the GM role is to adjudicate (dictate, to some extent) outcomes in that liminal recursive space where the game system and the diagetic frame inform each other. Force, here, is the manipulation of that adjudication for a particular GM determined goal. The extent to which that force is a negative has to do with the social contract of the table and the agreed upon division of authority between the players. I think it's more important that the 'force' breaks the table contract than anything to do with the particular action in question.

I think we actually mostly agree here actually, but I think you need to extend the definition of both force and authority outside the notion of 'setting'. I would agree that authority isn't all or nothing - the authority at a table can be divided in _many_ different ways, and pretty obviously without roleplaying breaking down.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 20, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> barely force is still force.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> the smallest amount of guidance possible is still guidance.



Yes. I think I said these things also. I'm not sure what you take the point of controversy to be.



FrogReaver said:


> Players can always choose to make a final stand and die. Not having an alternative good choice isn't the same as not having a choice at all.



I think it's widely - not universally - accepted that PC death, and even moreso TPK, is a loss condition in D&D play. (Which is where the example of the dragon armies comes from - it's in a DL module.)

The fact that the players can thwart the attempt at manipulation by sucking up a loss (and presumably giving up on the module?) doesn't show that there was no attempt at manipulation. It just shows it failed!



FrogReaver said:


> The DM's job is to get the PC's into interesting scenarios where they can make meaningful decisions. The issue is that players hate feeling like they got into something they didn't choose to get into.



I don't really agree with this, or at least with what all that it seems to imply.

For instance, the GM doesn't have to get the PCs _into_ inteesting situations. The GM can begin with a situation that is interesting.

Eg I started my Burning Wheel game with the PCs in a bazaar, giving one of them a chance to act on his Belief that he will find useful magical artefacts to free his brother form possession by a balrog, and the other the chance to act on a Belief about getting money.) The PCs can have "kickers" - ie player-authored interesting situations that provide the starting point for play.

In my 4e D&D Dark Sun game we used kickers - the barbarian gladiator started in the arena about to behead his opponent when the crowd all looked away as the cry rang out that "The tyrant's dead"; the Veiled Alliance bard/wizard started in the stands, where the contact he was about to meet had just fallen down dead, apparently assassinated.

In my two Cortex+ Heroic Fantasy games (one Vikings, one LotR), the players - after choosing their PCs from the pregens I provided - established what their objectives were that gave them reasons to set out on a journey, and then I built on that.

And I don't generally find that players object to the GM framing interesting situations either, as long as they follow from the fiction and respect player choices (both in PC build and prior action resolution). In my main 4e game the fighter PC failed a check in a skill challenge where the PCs were interacting with some witches. The player had indicated some interest in taking the Pit Fighter paragon path, and the wtitches were predicting his PC's future in respect of this, and as the consequence of failure I narrated the pulling of a cord and the resultant dropping of the PC into a pit, where he had to fight giant spiders. The existence of spiders in the witches' ruined manor had already been foreshadowed; being a pit fighter was the player's own content-introduction!; there was no objection to the way it unfolded - it was a consequecne of failure that followed from the fiction.

RPGing with interesting situations is possible without guidance or manipulation towards fore-ordained results in the fiction; and players can be enjoy RPGing without GM illusionism.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 20, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> If a GM is neutral - even coming across as almost uncaring - in the presentation of various elements, hooks, and whatever else, then there's little if any force involved.  But *if the GM isn't neutra*l, or presents only one option, or drops big hints saying "go this way!", then you've got Force



This is not true.

To recap from the OP, here is how I have characterised GM force, using the Traveller Book as my canonical source: _ gentle guidance or manipulation, by the GM, to a fore-ordained goal_.

Deliberately narrating that the PCs in a dungeon find a secret door - an example canvassed by Gygax in his DMG - may be force in this sense, though barely so: by making the secret door salient the GM gently guides the PCs to make a particular choice, of going to a particular placer in the dungeon.

Here is a passage from the Burning Wheel revised rulebook, p 109:

If one of your [PC's] relationships is your wife in the village, the GM is supposed to use this to create situations in play. If you're hunting a vampire, of course it's your wife who is his victim! Suddenly, you're swept up in a plot of terror and intrigue.​
That's not neutral GMing, but it is not force. There is no guidance or manipulation by the GM to a fore-ordained goal. It's about _framing_, not outcomes/resolution.



Lanefan said:


> It may be somewhat foreordained on the large scale that the party's going to go through adventures A, B and C but how they approach any of them and-or what they do or accomplish in the process of going through them might not be foreordained at all.



Until you say something about what A, B and C are, this is too abstract to say much about.

But, in the abstract, this looks like it will require force. If the players, when their PCs are framed into situation A, are not guided or manipulated to a fore-ordained goal, then what guarantee is there that situation B will follow from the established fiction?


----------



## pemerton (Feb 20, 2020)

Here is @Manbearcat's characterisation of force:

_Manipulation of the gamestate (typically covert) by a GM which nullifies (or in slightly more benign cases; modifies) player input in order to form or maintain a narrative that conforms to the GM's vision. _​
Gygax's suggestion to suspend wandering monster rolls for a party that has already suffered wandering monsters while moving through explored parts of the dungeon to the new bit they want to explore, and are doing so in a skilled way, is not force in this sense. No player input is nullified or modified. No GM-envisioned narrative is being formed or maintained.

I think that is the correct analytic outcome.

The well-known device in the first DL module, which uses the advance of the dragon armies to force the players to have their PCs move to Xak Tsaroth (I finally looked it up), in my view is force. It is _guiding and manipulating to a fore-ordained outcome_. But I don't see that it falls under Manbearcat's characterisation: there is the maintaining and forming of a GM-envisioned narrative; but I don't see how player input is being nullified or modified.


----------



## prabe (Feb 20, 2020)

pemerton said:


> Here is @Manbearcat's characterisation of force:
> 
> _Manipulation of the gamestate (typically covert) by a GM which nullifies (or in slightly more benign cases; modifies) player input in order to form or maintain a narrative that conforms to the GM's vision. _​
> [snip]
> ...




So, do we need a different term for what the writers of that module were doing, and GM Force?


----------



## pemerton (Feb 20, 2020)

prabe said:


> So, do we need a different term for what the writers of that module were doing, and GM Force?



Not in my view. I think the notion of _GM guidance and/or manipulation to a fore-ordained goal _does the job.

This overlaps with @Manbearcat's characterisation in part: _fore-ordained goal _is roughly synonymous with _GM-envisioned narrative_.

But it differs from @Manbeacat's characterisation in part: it uses a general notion of _guidance and/or manipulation _without further stipulating that this must _nullify or modify player input_.

Contra @Ovinomancer, this difference does not pertain to moments vs arcs of play: _guidance to a fore-ordained outcome _can be attributed to a particular moment of play (like the Gygax secret door example) just as much as _manipulation of the gamestate to establish or maintain a GM-envisioned narrative_. Which is no surprise, given the rough synonymy of the italicised phrases.

The difference is that _modifying or nullifying player input_ happens at a certain point of the action resolution process, namely, downstream from the player input in question. Whereas _guiding or manipulating towards a goal_ can occur upstream of player input into action resolution, that is, _in the process of framing_. Which is what is happening in the DL case (strong manipulation) and the secret door case (barest of guidance).

I think this is putting me slightly at odds with @chaochou above, which always worries me because he's a better analyst of RPGing than I am! In the DL example I believe that the GM is exercising authority that the rulebooks and module confer - the GM has authority to frame those encounters. I also think that the GM is exercising force, because s/he is manipulating the trajectory of play towards a fore-ordained goal.

In the Gygax wandering monster case, I think - for the reasons I've given - no force is being exercised (and as I posted not far upthread I think my characterisation and @Manbearcat's characterisation produce the same conclusion in this respect). But the GM is pushing the limits of authority, because suspending what presents itself as a mandated procedure by appeal to a much more vaguely and waffly-worded permission to wield overwhelming power. But I think that's mostly because Gygax wasn't a terribly good writer of rules. I think that the wanderming monster system could be rewritten more clearly (maybe using the Apocalpyse World presentation of clocks as a starting point) to both state its purpose (it's about punishing bad play that wastes time and creates noise, with a simulationist side-effect of presenting dungeon ecology) and then explain why, if that purpose is not being served due to unlikely rolls vs a group playing skillfully, the clock can be temporarily suspended. That would make it clearer that it's not force and also make it clearer how the GM is meant to do it without breaking the rules.

Of course this requires a GM to exercise judgement. But that's an unremarkable feature of a traditional RPG and not especially related to the notion of force.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 20, 2020)

To add something to my reply just upthread to @prabe, which also to some extent builds on @chaochou's remark that "a dungeon can be created and populated without need to reference force":

My own opinion, which is based on my own experience as GM and player, and on reading modules and reports of play over the years, is that _framing_ is one of the most important GM skills.

Framing needs to invite the players to engage the situation. Otherwise the game becomes boring and pointless. I've experienced this as a player, sometimes been guilty of it as a GM, and heard many reports of it.

But framing which guides or manipulates towards a fore-ordained goal - like the dragon armies, and most modules I know from the 2nd ed and 3E D&D eras - tends towards suckitude, because it makes play pointless in a different way: the players have nothing to contribute. (Even their dice rolls don't matter, because the GM has to ignore or fudge or negate those outcomes to make sure the fore-ordained goal is achieved.)

Between those two pitfalls is a lot of room for manoeuvre, but I think it requires some thought and some deftness to do it well. I've been GMed by people who are pretty experienced RPGers but haven't been able to do it.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 20, 2020)

@pemerton 

At some point this evening I'm going to try to read all of these mentions and try to analyze where we might be (if we are) at odds.

Here is what I think needs analyzed (and what I'll try to do):

What does _player input_ mean in each of these varying situations?

Here is the thing.  A player's input correlates to the game's premise.  Further, a GM's role is going to correlate to the nature of that input.  Put another way:

Basic D&D tests a player's ability to (a) deploy guile, (b) manage strategic resources over the course of a delve (loadout of various forms, HPs, etc), and (c) engage skillfully with tactical decision-points (which includes intra-party integration/force-multiplication).  A GM's role is, effectively, to create a complex, themed obstacle course that integrates the ruleset, that tests (a), (b), and (c), and then referee the collision of the party and the obstacle course from a position of neutrality.

Both sides of the equation are a different arrangement in, say, Dogs in the Vineyard.

I mean 4e, while it certainly has some overlap, is also very different from Basic (in part because character theme and intent-based action resolution mediation is a HUGE part of play for both players and GM).



I think what I'll end up doing tonight is taking a singular moment of resolution and examining what player input means in that moment and how force can nullify it.


----------



## prabe (Feb 20, 2020)

@pemerton Thanks for the answers. Using what I've called an "instigating event" has seemed more like framing than force to me, and I'm pleased to see my intuition at least has some support.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 20, 2020)

pemerton said:


> Here is @Manbearcat's characterisation of force:
> 
> _Manipulation of the gamestate (typically covert) by a GM which nullifies (or in slightly more benign cases; modifies) player input in order to form or maintain a narrative that conforms to the GM's vision. _​
> Gygax's suggestion to suspend wandering monster rolls for a party that has already suffered wandering monsters while moving through explored parts of the dungeon to the new bit they want to explore, and are doing so in a skilled way, is not force in this sense. No player input is nullified or modified. No GM-envisioned narrative is being formed or maintained.
> ...




The GM-narrative being formed is "the PCs won't be forced to retreat or waste resources on yet another random encounter because they need them to be at all successful going forward."

Although I'm not promoting yet another definition, the definition I typically use for GM force is when the GM substitutes fiat for expected table-accepted mechanics.  So if a DM decides to substitute "no encounter" for a roll when the assigned mechanics would roll, he is using force.  If the GM is drawing a map by fiat, a castle can be placed without force, but if the GM assigns a castle during a hex-crawl as opposed to rolling on the assigned tables, he is using force.  If the GM normally assigns room contents by fiat, no force is applied though if he changes contents on the fly when that isn't the expected behaviour , he is using force.  The GM is forcibly altering the course away from the 'natural' events of using the expected mechanics.

This tends to become most visible to the players when their declarations and choices are undercut, obviously.

Force is just a technique otherwise.  Sometimes a DM thinks it is called for to reward good play, cancel terrible luck, or provide a 'narratively better' situation.  Heck, sometimes the entire table thinks it is called for.  It only becomes a problematic technique when there is disagreement as to it use.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 20, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> Here is what I think needs analyzed (and what I'll try to do):
> 
> What does _player input_ mean in each of these varying situations?



That's the point on which I've identified a difference of characterisation. Under a different analysis from mine, you might establish an extensional equivalence of the two (non-synonymous) characterisations.



Manbearcat said:


> Basic D&D tests a player's ability to (a) deploy guile, (b) manage strategic resources over the course of a delve (loadout of various forms, HPs, etc), and (c) engage skillfully with tactical decision-points (which includes intra-party integration/force-multiplication).  A GM's role is, effectively, to create a complex, themed obstacle course that integrates the ruleset, that tests (a), (b), and (c), and then referee the collision of the party and the obstacle course from a position of neutrality.



When what you say here is brought into contact with Gygax's discussion of wandering monsters, one thing is missing - the "megadungeon". (I don't know Torchbearer and so can't comment; but in Luke Crane's Moldvay play that led to it I think he played only modules, not "megadungeons.)

In the traditional (mega)dungeon, which is what Gygax talks about in his PHB under Successful Adventures, and is also what he is referring to on p 9 of his DMG, the PCs have to move through "cleaned"/explored bits of the dungeon to get to the new bits that they are exploring. This movement is _inevitable_, even for the most skilled players; and it therefore generates wandering monster rolls. What Gygax is noticing is that even a very skill group of players who have to move through a fair bit of dungeon can get unlucky on those rolls and hence get hosed by wanderers and never actually get to deploy or show off their skill.

It's essentially a problem for framing: the fictional conceits combined with the "clock" process mean that every group, regardless of skill of play, has a random chance of suffering a hosing. In principle the best way to deal with this would be to fix the clocks (simply changing probabilities won't help, because the chance of hosing will still always be there). But that's tricky, especially given the conceits of the fiction (a well-known somewhat analogous thing is the "amber mist" at the end of each session of X2, which allows the PCs to recuperate without actually leaving the dungeon - and it's a pretty flagrant device!).


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 20, 2020)

Nagol said:


> The GM-narrative being formed is "the PCs won't be forced to retreat or waste resources on yet another random encounter because they need them to be at all successful going forward."
> 
> <snip>
> 
> So if a DM decides to substitute "no encounter" for a roll when the assigned mechanics would roll, he is using force.




This is where I come out on this (and expressed as much above) when the game specifically features a particular type of STRATEGIC DECISION-MAKING as fundamental to the play agenda.  This is overwhelmingly a feature of certain challenge-based games.

This is also why I created that model of the potential impacts of Force in that either thread (only 4 points of Force in 100 moments of play).  You have the 1st order impacts of Force (at say, moment 12), but then you have their downstream effects and how those impact/amplify/mitigate subsequent moments of play.

This is how a GM can turn a "neutrally adjudicated obstacle course whereby the collision of it and player's input will test x, y, z" into something of a "choreographed novel" (to use the very apt description that @pemerton has put forth in this thread).  Ignore Wandering Monster Roll > modify location of thing despite player input > fudge combat dice result > change Monster Reaction.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 20, 2020)

pemerton said:


> This is not true.
> 
> To recap from the OP, here is how I have characterised GM force, using the Traveller Book as my canonical source: _ gentle guidance or manipulation, by the GM, to a fore-ordained goal_.



An argument could be made - and hey, I might as well make it, just for fun - that the definition of Force could easily be expanded beyond both the goal and GM aspect and instead have it read _gentle guidance or manipulation, by the GM or a player, to a fore-ordained run of play._

Yes I know the thread's specifically talking about GM Force, but allow me to diverge a bit, below...



> Deliberately narrating that the PCs in a dungeon find a secret door - an example canvassed by Gygax in his DMG - may be force in this sense, though barely so: by making the secret door salient the GM gently guides the PCs to make a particular choice, of going to a particular placer in the dungeon.



Maybe.  Maybe not.  The secret door is what it is; if the players/PCs still have an open and unfettered choice as to whether to go through it once found then where's the Force?  The outcome isn't preordained.

Whether the door is salient or not might not be known info to the players and thus doesn't enter into their decision-making beyond "maybe".



> Here is a passage from the Burning Wheel revised rulebook, p 109:
> 
> If one of your [PC's] relationships is your wife in the village, the GM is supposed to use this to create situations in play. If you're hunting a vampire, of course it's your wife who is his victim! Suddenly, you're swept up in a plot of terror and intrigue.​
> That's not neutral GMing, but it is not force. There is no guidance or manipulation by the GM to a fore-ordained goal. It's about _framing_, not outcomes/resolution.



You're right it's not neutral, but it's still Force in a way; only this time it's being exerted *on* the GM rather than *by* the GM.

Just like D&D tends to hand the DM Force to use as a tool in the box, so here does BW seem to hand players some Force to use on the GM in how they want to shape the run of play.



> But, in the abstract, this looks like it will require force. If the players, when their PCs are framed into situation A, are not guided or manipulated to a fore-ordained goal, then what guarantee is there that situation B will follow from the established fiction?



It might not, immediately.

Time for some names.

Let's say that going in as GM I've decided that somehow during this campaign I'm going to find a way to run B7 Rahasia, L1 Bone Hill, and JG's Dark Tower - preferably in that order due to level suitability - because I happen to think they're all excellent adventures and because I happen to know none of these players have been through any of them before.  There'll be other adventures too, of course, but somewhere in this campaign those three are going to appear.

Pretty much no matter what background-goals-interests the players have for their PCs, chances are very high I can find something in each of those modules that'll relate somehow - and so we might well end up exerting Force on each other: they through forcing me to play to their goals etc. and me through using those goals to get them into those adventures.

And if any of the players have anything related to a PC's ancestry as a goal or interest, I'm gold.  The Rahib in Rahasia could be a Necromancer with info leading to the whereabouts of an ancestor who is in fact the chained-up skeleton in Bone Hill, who in turn informs the party she was put there by the lich in Dark Tower.  (and I made that up while typing it, so stringin' these things together can't be that hard!)

Is this bad?  I don't think so.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 20, 2020)

pemerton said:


> In the traditional (mega)dungeon, which is what Gygax talks about in his PHB under Successful Adventures, and is also what he is referring to on p 9 of his DMG, the PCs have to move through "cleaned"/explored bits of the dungeon to get to the new bits that they are exploring. This movement is _inevitable_, even for the most skilled players; and it therefore generates wandering monster rolls. What Gygax is noticing is that even a very skill group of players who have to move through a fair bit of dungeon can get unlucky on those rolls and hence get hosed by wanderers and never actually get to deploy or show off their skill.
> 
> It's essentially a problem for framing: the fictional conceits combined with the "clock" process mean that every group, regardless of skill of play, has a random chance of suffering a hosing. In principle the best way to deal with this would be to fix the clocks (simply changing probabilities won't help, because the chance of hosing will still always be there). But that's tricky, especially given the conceits of the fiction (a well-known somewhat analogous thing is the "amber mist" at the end of each session of X2, which allows the PCs to recuperate without actually leaving the dungeon - and it's a pretty flagrant device!).




This is very interesting and I think modern game design has something to say about this; Gloomhaven

Gloomhaven integrated this exact aspect of play into its tuning.

Gygax did not for megadungeons, so his answer is the provision "The Wandering Monster Clock doesn't get checked under condition y."  That, to me, doesn't look like Force.  However, there does become a problem of a sort of "incoherency creep" when this provision isn't player-facing and explicit.  Players not realizing that this provision isn't active might be spending strategic resources (Invisibility, Silence, or just time/Exploration Turns etc) to ensure that a Wandering Monster encounter doesn't occur, or doesn't occur on terms that are problematic for them...when the consequences of the Wandering Monster Clock aren't even in play!

While that isn't Force...that is definitely a major problem with the ruleset.

Now, in the other case (ignoring Wandering Monsters when they're "online"), I can't see an argument for that not being Force.  While it may not be nullifying an active action declaration, its nullifying/modifying the meaning/impact of past and future action declarations by players as they manage strategic resources (including time/Exploration Turns)!


----------



## Nagol (Feb 20, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> This is where I come out on this (and expressed as much above) when the game specifically features a particular type of STRATEGIC DECISION-MAKING as fundamental to the play agenda.  This is overwhelmingly a feature of certain challenge-based games.
> 
> This is also why I created that model of the potential impacts of Force in that either thread (only 4 points of Force in 100 moments of play).  You have the 1st order impacts of Force (at say, moment 12), but then you have their downstream effects and how those impact/amplify/mitigate subsequent moments of play.
> 
> This is how a GM can turn a "neutrally adjudicated obstacle course whereby the collision of it and player's input will test x, y, z" into something of a "choreographed novel" (to use the very apt description that @pemerton has put forth in this thread).  Ignore Wandering Monster Roll > modify location of thing despite player input > fudge combat dice result > change Monster Reaction.




Yeah, some games are more prone to force use.  It's really hard to use force as I define it in Amber, for example.  The primary table-expected mechanic is GM fiat.

The middle of the pack would be 'discover through play' games where little is prepped and force application (as we've discussed to death elsewhere) can generally affect player consequence and scene framing.

Using a game with sites that have items and creatures pre-placed and 'naturalistic' modeling of movement (i.e. wandering monsters) comes with many opportunities and temptations to apply force.  Even if it is just 'let's get this encounter done already, I need to go home."

The absolute most prone to force use though are genre emulators, especially 'early craft' ones where the GM was still assigned the bulk of the accountability to make sessions/adventures feel like the genre being emulated: James Bond, Vampire, action movies games, and the like.  Those games tend to ask the GM to apply force because the mechanics don't match expected play (or can diverge quickly through normal play).


----------



## Nagol (Feb 20, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> An argument could be made - and hey, I might as well make it, just for fun - that the definition of Force could easily be expanded beyond both the goal and GM aspect and instead have it read _gentle guidance or manipulation, by the GM or a player, to a fore-ordained run of play._
> 
> Yes I know the thread's specifically talking about GM Force, but allow me to diverge a bit, below...
> 
> ...




I'd suggest using the wife in Burning Wheel isn't force so much as a pre-negotiated requirement.  Much like Hero Games' disadvantage Dependent NPC.  When defined and accepted by the GM, a contract is formed that this aspect will come into dramatic use in the game, somehow (Hero goes one step further and presents the general commonality of occurrence).  Both games effectively offer some basic PC-adjacent world-building tools to the players signaling what the players want to get involved in, subject to the GM's approval.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 20, 2020)

pemerton said:


> Lewis Pulsipher is (was? I'm talking about stuff he weote 40 years ago) the best advocate I know of the wargaming/"skilled play" style of D&D (Gygax is the second best I know)



I agree, and I think this is a very clear statement of that style. A Guide to Dungeon Mastering Part II by Lewis Pulsipher in White Dwarf #35 (Nov 1982):

D&D is a game, the players expect to have some fun, and from this arises the unwritten rule that governs every good D&D game: if the players are wary, intelligent, and imaginative, and therefore play well, they should succeed… Your job is to make the game exciting and challenging... In the ideal session the players should escape almost literally sweating with fright, but perhaps with some reward and with no one dead (or at least, with no one irrevocably annihilated).​
A couple of things about it strike me as a bit strange. There are many games that have an element of chance, such as poker. A poker player can do everything right and still lose, if they're unlucky. So why shouldn't that also be true of D&D?

Pulsipher puts a surprising amount of emphasis on making the players feel strong emotion. That's something I associate more with a story-oriented style. In sports and games, nail-biting tension may occur but mostly it doesn't. And if it does it's down to the actions and abilities of the competitors, not a supposedly neutral arbiter.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 21, 2020)

Nagol said:


> I'd suggest using the wife in Burning Wheel isn't force so much as a pre-negotiated requirement.



As in, similar to a GM saying upfront there'll be no Elf PCs in this setting?

OK, I can kinda see that on the marco scale.  On the micro scale, however, the no-Elf thing is done once and that's it: it never really affects the run of play at the table.  The wife example, however, does affect the run of play whenever she's brought into it, as she sooner or later must be by the sound of it.



> Much like Hero Games' disadvantage Dependent NPC.  When defined and accepted by the GM, a contract is formed that this aspect will come into dramatic use in the game, somehow (Hero goes one step further and presents the general commonality of occurrence).  Both games effectively offer some basic PC-adjacent world-building tools to the players signaling what the players want to get involved in, subject to the GM's approval.



Similar to the wife example, then - the GM is system-forced into bringing these things into play at some point.

One risk I see with this is that unless the players share lots of common interests (outside of gaming) it's almost inevitable that sooner or later one player's story-affecting character aspect (that the GM eventually has to play to) is going to bore the hell out of the others, and vice-versa: "Must we hear about your family history again?  I think we know it all of by heart..."

When the GM has more input into the story s/he can read the players and try to find something that'll be more likely to engage them all.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 21, 2020)

Manbearcat said:
			
		

> when the game specifically features a particular type of STRATEGIC DECISION-MAKING as fundamental to the play agenda





			
				Manbearcat said:
			
		

> Gygax did not for megadungeons, so his answer is the provision "The Wandering Monster Clock doesn't get checked under condition y." That, to me, doesn't look like Force.



Am I right to read this as you changing your mind between posts and now agreeing with me about the Gygax wanderers example? (Or, if not agreeing, at least getting a handle on how I'm seeing it?)



			
				Manbearcat said:
			
		

> there does become a problem of a sort of "incoherency creep" when this provision isn't player-facing and explicit.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Players not realizing that this provision isn't active might be spending strategic resources (Invisibility, Silence, or just time/Exploration Turns etc) to ensure that a Wandering Monster encounter doesn't occur



I agree it's tricky. Though I don't think it's more tricky than this advice from the Cortex+ Hacker's Guide (pp 218-19):

[Y]ou don’t have to use the biggest die for your total when making a roll with the doom pool; you should gauge the state of the heroes when making rolls and possibly keep the bigger dice for one or more effect dice. This allows you to balance the challenge if you feel there’s a need for it.​
Whether that's a "major problem with the ruleset" I'm not sure. In the Gygax case, it's the skilled play including the use of resources that is the putative trigger for the GM to suspend the clock, though inevitably there will be uncertainty around the margins.

I also think it's very important to stress that Gygax doesn _not_ contemplate suspending/ignoring wanderming monster checks when the players actually have their PCs engaged in exploration. It's only when the players have "the expectation of going to a new, strange area" and "the party’s strength is spent trying to fight their way into the area" that the option is said to be on the table. Because at that point the wanderer's aren't doing the thing they're meant to do in the system.

EDIT: some tag trouble there, I've tried to patch it.


----------



## chaochou (Feb 21, 2020)

pemerton said:


> Not in my view. I think the notion of _GM guidance and/or manipulation to a fore-ordained goal _does the job.
> 
> I think this is putting me slightly at odds with @chaochou above, which always worries me because he's a better analyst of RPGing than I am!




Hahahahaha! I didn't realise we were keeping score!

Anyway, the point I was trying to draw out was that for something to be force it must be deployed at a moment of resolution of something which had hitherto been unresolved through play.

I agree that the GM can plan to deploy force (in all kinds of ways) and adventures can contain all kinds of assumptions and instructions to generate it, but in my view the actual appearance of force is during resolution at a decision point within the gameplay.

The lack of agreed resolution systems (for example, for evading onrushing armies) is how many games help GMs disguise force, but I don't agree that subterfuge is a required element, just a convenient one. I've been in many games where force was deployed absolutely blatantly, but was still accepted (with varying degrees of semi-good natured mockery...)


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 21, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> I know of no "offical" definition.  Who would be the authority? I prefer @Manbearcat's recent formulation, as it succinctly sums up my understanding of Force:
> 
> *Manipulation of the gamestate (typically covert) by a GM which nullifies (or in slightly more benign cases; modifies) player input in order to form or maintain a narrative that conforms to the GM's vision.*




"*Manipulation of the gamestate by a GM" - *Introducing content is a manipulation of the gamestate

"*which nullifies or modifies player input" - *Introducing content modifies player input.  Though I'm unsure of what nullifying player input would look like.  

"*in order to form or maintain a narrative"  - *Introducing content is always done to form a narrative

"*that conforms to the GM's vision." - *This sounds like we are trying to measure intent.  How can anyone say what is being done to conform to the GM's vision?  Or more appropriately - isn't everything the GM introduces part of conforming the world to the GM's vision?

I don't find this definition to be any better than @pemerton's.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 21, 2020)

1)  100 % agree with @chaochou 's post above.

2)  @pemerton 

Here is what I'll say. 

a)  *If *(i) that provision is explicated in either the rules or as a table hack, *and *(ii) the actualization of it is manifestly transparent during play ("guys, this wing of the dungeon is completed; Wandering Monsters turned off"), then its not Force.

b)  If (i) and (ii) aren't both true in a game where strategic decision-making is a focal point of player input...then turning Wandering Monsters off is almost surely a momentary application of Force (with downstream effects).


----------



## Nagol (Feb 21, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> As in, similar to a GM saying upfront there'll be no Elf PCs in this setting?
> 
> OK, I can kinda see that on the marco scale.  On the micro scale, however, the no-Elf thing is done once and that's it: it never really affects the run of play at the table.  The wife example, however, does affect the run of play whenever she's brought into it, as she sooner or later must be by the sound of it.
> 
> ...




Not much exposition is necessary most of the time, especially after the first introduction.  Think of Lois Lane or Buffy's "sister" constantly needing rescue: "Dawn's in trouble; it must be Tuesday".  There are NPCs in the campaign that become natural targets for plot complications hopefully in ways natural to their station.

It certainly can be a challenge in Hero if every player of the table of 6 decides their PC will be hunted by 3 unique groups and have 2 NPCs that continually get involved in 90% of the adventures.  That's an expected 10.8 NPCs getting underfoot. Every. Stinking. Adventure.  And 18 different groups with different agendas for the GM to keep track of in addition to anything he wanted to do in the campaign.  

Thankfully, it rarely gets this bad.  Some negotiation and coordination does becomes necessary though.  My longest Champions campaign I had to talk to the players about how I was altering the involvement/frequency sharply down because of table fatigue.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 21, 2020)

pemerton said:


> Yes. I think I said these things also. I'm not sure what you take the point of controversy to be.




If something as simple as introducing content into the game is GM Forcing then GM Forcing isn't a useful concept.



> I think it's widely - not universally - accepted that PC death, and even moreso TPK, is a loss condition in D&D play. (Which is where the example of the dragon armies comes from - it's in a DL module.)




So at a table that didn't consider PC death or a TPK to be a loss condition then would the DM introducing the dragon armies content with only 1 escape route be categorized as GM force?

If so then why?  If not, then the same action can be both forcing and not forcing - it just depends on the table.  That makes a poor starting point for RPG theory IMO.



> The fact that the players can thwart the attempt at manipulation by sucking up a loss (and presumably giving up on the module?) doesn't show that there was no attempt at manipulation. It just shows it failed!




If attempted manipulation can be thwarted then it wasn't really forcing to begin with was it?



> I don't really agree with this, or at least with what all that it seems to imply.
> 
> For instance, the GM doesn't have to get the PCs _into_ inteesting situations. The GM can begin with a situation that is interesting.




Beginning them in an interesting situation IS just a method of getting them into interesting situations.



> Eg I started my Burning Wheel game with the PCs in a bazaar, giving one of them a chance to act on his Belief that he will find useful magical artefacts to free his brother form possession by a balrog, and the other the chance to act on a Belief about getting money.) The PCs can have "kickers" - ie player-authored interesting situations that provide the starting point for play.




Which fits your definition of forcing.



> In my 4e D&D Dark Sun game we used kickers - the barbarian gladiator started in the arena about to behead his opponent when the crowd all looked away as the cry rang out that "The tyrant's dead"; the Veiled Alliance bard/wizard started in the stands, where the contact he was about to meet had just fallen down dead, apparently assassinated.




Also fit's your definition of forcing.

I







> n my two Cortex+ Heroic Fantasy games (one Vikings, one LotR), the players - after choosing their PCs from the pregens I provided - established what their objectives were that gave them reasons to set out on a journey, and then I built on that.




Forced players to play pregens - forced the game into being one built on their objectives - lots of forcing here...



> And I don't generally find that players object to the GM framing interesting situations either, as long as they follow from the fiction and respect player choices (both in PC build and prior action resolution).




Agreed - which is evidence that your notion of forcing is much too broad.



> In my main 4e game the fighter PC failed a check in a skill challenge where the PCs were interacting with some witches. The player had indicated some interest in taking the Pit Fighter paragon path, and the wtitches were predicting his PC's future in respect of this, and as the consequence of failure I narrated the pulling of a cord and the resultant dropping of the PC into a pit, where he had to fight giant spiders. The existence of spiders in the witches' ruined manor had already been foreshadowed; being a pit fighter was the player's own content-introduction!; there was no objection to the way it unfolded - it was a consequecne of failure that followed from the fiction.




Sounds like it also meets your definition of forcing.



> RPGing with interesting situations is possible without guidance or manipulation towards fore-ordained results in the fiction; and players can be enjoy RPGing without GM illusionism.




But in every one of your examples provided there was guidance and manipulation toward fore-ordained results in the fiction.  It just depends of the level you are looking at.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 21, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> "*Manipulation of the gamestate by a GM" - *Introducing content is a manipulation of the gamestate
> 
> "*which nullifies or modifies player input" - *Introducing content modifies player input.  Though I'm unsure of what nullifying player input would look like.
> 
> ...



You manipulated the gamestate (you cut up the definition and pretended each was an independent clause) which nullifies or modifies player input (mine, in this case, and @Manbearcat's) in order to form or maintain a narrative (that this isn't a definition of Force because it's encompasses normal play) that conforms to the GM's vision (you seem pretty motivated here).  In other words, you've engaged in Force.

Humor aside, you can't sever a sentence like this and evaluate the pieces individually to come to a conclusion that accurately addresses the sentence.  This is bad analysis.  Maybe not a bad point, but you need to get there a different way than how you've done it.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 21, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> Humor aside, you can't sever a sentence like this and evaluate the pieces individually to come to a conclusion that accurately addresses the sentence.  This is bad analysis.  Maybe not a bad point, but you need to get there a different way than how you've done it.




Of course you can.  I just did.  The severed pieces do converge to a whole - that introducing content is also forcing under @Manbearcat's definition.  Why?  because introducing content meets every requirement in his definition - which was the purpose of severing it to begin with - to show that this was the case.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 21, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> Of course you can.  I just did.  The severed pieces do converge to a whole - that introducing content is also forcing under @Manbearcat's definition.  Why?  because introducing content meets every requirement in his definition - which was the purpose of severing it to begin with - to show that this was the case.




How does it nullify or modify player input? 

I mean, I can see how a specific element introduced may do so, but not any and all elements introduced.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 21, 2020)

pemerton said:


> Not in my view. I think the notion of _GM guidance and/or manipulation to a fore-ordained goal _does the job.
> 
> This overlaps with @Manbearcat's characterisation in part: _fore-ordained goal _is roughly synonymous with _GM-envisioned narrative_.
> 
> ...



I disagree with this formulation.  The "guidance" you speak of is hard to separate from legitimate content introduction.  The only this you have here is 'foreordained conclusion'.  This is a hard sell, as if I have an idea the night before a game of Blades that I think might be neat, and an opportunity arises in game that fits, if I deploy that using my authority to frame I'm not engaged in guidance to a foreordained conclusion, I'm introducing an idea I may have though earlier.  You've blurred this by suggesting that @FrogReaver's introduction of a dungeon by letting players find out about it's existence is this kind of guidance.  But, the GM has the authority to create dungeons in many games, and giving players the option to explore it doesn't seem like guidance, it seems like giving, I don't know, an option.  This can't be Force, or all of D&D is force, including Gygaxian play.

In other words, unless I'm negating previous player input I don't see how Force can be applied in framing unless the definition of Force is meant to include all games where framing isn't 100% centered on the characters.  The GM is as much a player and entitled to introduce themes they find interesting, so long as they don't override the players while doing so.  

The Gygax secret door example appears to be Force in my opinion because it's subverting the player input in a skilled game to reach a GM desired outcome.  The idea in skilled play, as I understand it, is that you deploy character resources in a skilled way and you succeed through how you deploy those resources.  In that play concept, subverting the skill input of the players is Force.  It's not a framing issue, because finding secret doors is not a matter of framing in this mode of play.  You've moved something that should be an outcome of skilled play into framing, and that's what's resulting in Force -- the negation of player input in finding the secret door according to the assumptions of play.



> I think this is putting me slightly at odds with @chaochou above, which always worries me because he's a better analyst of RPGing than I am! In the DL example I believe that the GM is exercising authority that the rulebooks and module confer - the GM has authority to frame those encounters. I also think that the GM is exercising force, because s/he is manipulating the trajectory of play towards a fore-ordained goal.
> 
> In the Gygax wandering monster case, I think - for the reasons I've given - no force is being exercised (and as I posted not far upthread I think my characterisation and @Manbearcat's characterisation produce the same conclusion in this respect). But the GM is pushing the limits of authority, because suspending what presents itself as a mandated procedure by appeal to a much more vaguely and waffly-worded permission to wield overwhelming power. But I think that's mostly because Gygax wasn't a terribly good writer of rules. I think that the wanderming monster system could be rewritten more clearly (maybe using the Apocalpyse World presentation of clocks as a starting point) to both state its purpose (it's about punishing bad play that wastes time and creates noise, with a simulationist side-effect of presenting dungeon ecology) and then explain why, if that purpose is not being served due to unlikely rolls vs a group playing skillfully, the clock can be temporarily suspended. That would make it clearer that it's not force and also make it clearer how the GM is meant to do it without breaking the rules.
> 
> Of course this requires a GM to exercise judgement. But that's an unremarkable feature of a traditional RPG and not especially related to the notion of force.



I'm with @Manbearcat, here.  If the decision to forgo wandering monster checks is player facing, it's fine.  If it's not, then doing so is Force according to the mode of play expected.  You've modified the player inputs into how they want to avoid wandering monsters in a skilled way by deciding there are none when the players expect there to be some.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 21, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> How does it nullify or modify player input?
> 
> I mean, I can see how a specific element introduced may do so, but not any and all elements introduced.




When content is introduced players must either ignore it or interact with it.  Part 1 should be obvious - if they interact with the content then introducing that content modified their input by getting them to interact with the new content.  Part 2 isn't quite as obvious - if they ignore the content then introducing the content modified their input by getting them to ignore the new content.  In either case their input is modified from where it previously was.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 21, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> Of course you can.  I just did.  The severed pieces do converge to a whole - that introducing content is also forcing under @Manbearcat's definition.  Why?  because introducing content meets every requirement in his definition - which was the purpose of severing it to begin with - to show that this was the case.



No it doesn't, and the key here is how you severed the player input part.  The manipulation of the gamestate has to modify or nullify player input that already exists at the moment of manipulation.  When you severed it, you confused yourself into thinking that any future player input would be modified or nullified.  But, this definition applies at a specific moment in time -- where the GM manipulates the gamestate.  Player input is an input to the function, not a future state.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 21, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> No it doesn't, and the key here is how you severed the player input part.  The manipulation of the gamestate has to modify or nullify player input that already exists at the moment of manipulation.




"modify or nullify input that *already exists at the moment of manipulation"*

The bolded wasn't part of the original definition you provided me.  It's easy to say my understanding of a concept is wrong when you continue to add to the definition to negate my criticisms.



> When you severed it, you confused yourself into thinking that any future player input would be modified or nullified.  But, this definition applies at a specific moment in time -- where the GM manipulates the gamestate.  Player input is an input to the function, not a future state.




That's not in the definition you originally provided.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 21, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> "modify or nullify input that *already exists at the moment of manipulation"*
> 
> The bolded wasn't part of the original definition you provided me.  It's easy to say my understanding of a concept is wrong when you continue to add to the definition to negate my criticisms.
> 
> ...



Of course it was.  The definition is about examining a moment of play.  I'm pretty sure I said that.  That you ignored it an ran off somewhere else isn't on me.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 21, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> I know of no "offical" definition.  Who would be the authority? I prefer @Manbearcat's recent formulation, as it succinctly sums up my understanding of Force:
> 
> *Manipulation of the gamestate (typically covert) by a GM which nullifies (or in slightly more benign cases; modifies) player input in order to form or maintain a narrative that conforms to the GM's vision.*




@Ovinomancer 

I see no mention of moments here


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 21, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> "modify or nullify input that *already exists at the moment of manipulation"*
> 
> The bolded wasn't part of the original definition you provided me.  It's easy to say my understanding of a concept is wrong when you continue to add to the definition to negate my criticisms.
> 
> ...



I mean, we can get there textually, too, by not severing the definition and examining it as a whole.  The definition is about the _manipulation of the gamestate_.  How do I manipulate the gamestate at a later time when I introduce material?  I can't, because the introduced material is now _part of the gamestate moving forward_.  Manipulation only occurs in the present moment, so any player input must already exist in the present moment.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 21, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> @Ovinomancer
> 
> I see no mention of moments here



Well, sure, when you take the post out of context with the arguments that led to you asking me for the definition, I suppose you might miss it.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 21, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> Well, sure, when you take the post out of context with the arguments that led to you asking me for the definition, I suppose you might miss it.




I'm sorry I'm not a mind reader.  You said that definition succinctly sums up your understanding of forcing.  I took that at face value.  Apologies if that definition doesn't succinctly sum up your understanding of forcing - as evidenced by the need to add more to it in light of my examination of it.  

If you want to give me the actual definition I should be looking at I'll be happy to take another look.  But there's no point in you acting like you said something you didn't originally and then arguing with me about it.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 21, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> I'm sorry I'm not a mind reader.  You said that definition succinctly sums up your understanding of forcing.  I took that at face value.  Apologies if that definition doesn't succinctly sum up your understanding of forcing - as evidenced by the need to add more to it in light of my examination of it.
> 
> If you want to give me the actual definition I should be looking at I'll be happy to take another look.  But there's no point in you acting like you said something you didn't originally and then arguing with me about it.



Okay, this is exciting posting and all, I'm sure everyone's enjoying it, but let's just move forward with a shared understanding?


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 21, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> Okay, this is exciting posting and all, I'm sure everyone's enjoying it, but let's just move forward with a shared understanding?




Agree.  Only slight issue is that I'm not sure I'm completely understanding.  So please bear with me as I try to.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 21, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> When content is introduced players must either ignore it or interact with it.  Part 1 should be obvious - if they interact with the content then introducing that content modified their input by getting them to interact with the new content.  Part 2 isn't quite as obvious - if they ignore the content then introducing the content modified their input by getting them to ignore the new content.  In either case their input is modified from where it previously was.




You don’t think that the intention was that player input that had already been established is what is nullified or modified?

Basically, the GM ignoring what the players have already determined, either by totally ignoring it, or by changing it in order to get an outcome that he wanted instead of the one the players’ choices were leading to.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 21, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> You don’t think that the intention was that player input that had already been established is what is nullified or modified?



That's part of it, with the other part being attempts to modify player input before it occurs e.g. by only giving one option or by being very non-neutral in narrating choices, etc.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 21, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> You don’t think that the intention was that player input that had already been established is what is nullified or modified?




Maybe?  When provided a definition I tend to examine it on it's own merits - not necessarily what is intended by the author of said definition - possibly because I'm more of a math person - i'm sure the natural thing for an English person is to try to understand intention and fill in the missing gaps.



> Basically, the GM ignoring what the players have already determined, either by totally ignoring it, or by changing it in order to get an outcome that he wanted instead of the one the players’ choices were leading to.




If I was going to define GM forcing I would define it as:

"The GM *unfairly* manipulating the players via in-fiction actions so that they have their characters do something in-fiction he desires them to do."

I think the basic concept missing from most of the definitions is the idea of unfairness - even though it's been mentioned in  few posts.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 21, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> Maybe?  When provided a definition I tend to examine it on it's own merits - not necessarily what is intended by the author of said definition - possibly because I'm more of a math person - i'm sure the natural thing for an English person is to try to understand intention and fill in the missing gaps.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Okay, gotcha. I thought the context was clear based on the discussion, but that kind of thing will vary in discussion, especially in online discussions like these which are happening in spurts, likely mixed in between a lot of other activity on the part of the participants.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 21, 2020)

Alright, so I'm going to throw out some examples of GM Force, all using the same ruleset; 5e D&D (as everyone here is at least passingly familiar with it).

I'm going to start with (imo), the best part of the ruleset; The Social Interaction conflict mechanics.

I'm going to use a Ranger trying to entreat a domesticated, traumatized, starving, old dog to come back with her to camp where she hopes to use Speak With Animals to communicate with the creature in the morning (to learn about a situation that the dog witnessed); @Nagol .  In this case, the GM just doesn't want this dog to be befriended because they want to keep the mystery of the situation in play for awhile longer. They're enacting a classic "Block" against a gather information/divination player move.


While this dog is in bad shape, it isn't feral.  Its domesticated.
The dog was saved by the PCs from certain death and then ran off into the night when things got dangerous.  This is a dog; it knows the PCs helped it.

The players are _expecting the creature's Starting Attitude to be Friendly_ because of the above (as most dogs start friendly to strangers even without the stranger aiding them!).  

1)  The Ranger successfully tracks down the dog due to Natural Explorer and a high Survival Check so this can't possibly be blocked (or the Force will be so overt that it will cause a problem at the table).

2)  Through a series of canine-esque social exchanges, the GM tells the Ranger player that the starving dog is fixated on its pouch where she keeps her dried jerky.  This is a cinch.  The Ranger player bends down, opens the pouch while reaching in and eyes the dog carefully (makes an Animal Handling check to uncover the I/B/F related to the food).  The Ranger gets a 12 on the AH check.  The player figures its got to be good enough to uncover the I/B/F and that the dog just wants some food.  The GM says the dog just looks on warily, making no move to come forth (confirming nothing and not moving the social engagement forward).  
The Ranger player is incredulous.  How can a 12 not do the trick here?  They were expecting success and to be able to deploy the I/B/F for advantage in the coming Charisma check or to increase the Attitude one level before the Charisma check.

3) A blizzard is coming in, its a freezing night, and predators lurk on the tundra.  This is going nowhere and its getting dangerous (with the risk of the Exhaustion Track coming in play).

The Ranger player says, "enough of this, I open my pouch, brandish the jerky and move forward to the dog to give it to it manually."  This forces the Charisma check to determine the dog's reaction.  

The GM then says that the dog flattens its ears and growls as the Ranger approaches.  Again, the player is incredulous.  "Wait, what?  This dog is Hostile?  How?"  

The GM explains his case for a Hostile Starting Attitude (starving, trauma, and the dog appears extremely paranoid by the Ranger...maybe something in its recent past).  

The Ranger player is incredulous.  Even if they buy the Starting Attitude of Hostile, it should have been moved to Indifferent from the prior actions of saving the dog...but...sure.

A Charisma check is virtually pointless here as the Ranger would need a 20 in order to get it.  

4)  Alright, _Animal Friendship_ it is!

GM rolls in secret behind the screen and gets only a 2, but comes back with "the dog furrows its brow and emits a low growl; its clearly not ensorcelled".

In reality:

The GM made 3 separate moves of Force to enact this block (fudged Animal Handling DC > adversarial, but skillfully justified, Starting Attitude shuts down Charisma check > fudged Wisdom Saving Throw.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 21, 2020)

I used to do stuff like this back in the day routinely. Sometimes, it would be because I wanted to preserve something when a player introduced an unexpected solution to a problem, as in the example here. Other times, players would employ resources that I just didn’t appreciate, even though they were perfectly valid. 

I’m a long way from that myself, but I recently ran into it in an online game with a froend of mine who’s a self identified “old school” DM. The group is of mixed experience, so most of the players didn’t realize it was happening, but another player and I did. I disn’t point it out, I finished the session. But I’m very unsure if I’ll play in the next one.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 21, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> I'm going to use a Ranger trying to entreat a domesticated, traumatized, starving, old dog to come back with her to camp where she hopes to use Speak With Animals to communicate with the creature in the morning (to learn about a situation that the dog witnessed); @Nagol .  *In this case, the GM just doesn't want this dog to be befriended because they want to keep the mystery of the situation in play for awhile longer*. They're enacting a classic "Block" against a gather information/divination player move.




The GM can have his own desires about how he wants the situation to play out and still be fair in how he has it play out.  It seems very plausible that a traumatized starving dog runs away from the players, that trying to have it take food from your hand won't work, and that approaching it would be viewed by it as a hostile act leaving it to respond in kind.





> While this dog is in bad shape, it isn't feral.  Its domesticated.
> [*]The dog was saved by the PCs from certain death and then ran off into the night when things got dangerous. This is a dog; it knows the PCs helped it.






> The players are _expecting the creature's Starting Attitude to be Friendly_ because of the above (as most dogs start friendly to strangers even without the stranger aiding them!).




Traumatized starving dogs don't start friendly to anyone.  Sounds like a misplaced expectation.



> 1)  The Ranger successfully tracks down the dog due to Natural Explorer and a high Survival Check so this can't possibly be blocked (or the Force will be so overt that it will cause a problem at the table).




So no forcing here.



> 2)  Through a series of canine-esque social exchanges, the GM tells the Ranger player that the starving dog is fixated on its pouch where she keeps her dried jerky.  This is a cinch.  The Ranger player bends down, opens the pouch while reaching in and eyes the dog carefully (makes an Animal Handling check to uncover the I/B/F related to the food).  The Ranger gets a 12 on the AH check.  The player figures its got to be good enough to uncover the I/B/F and that the dog just wants some food.  The GM says the dog just looks on warily, making no move to come forth (confirming nothing and not moving the social engagement forward).
> The Ranger player is incredulous.  How can a 12 not do the trick here?  They were expecting success and to be able to deploy the I/B/F for advantage in the coming Charisma check or to increase the Attitude one level before the Charisma check.




Seems to me like expecting a 12 to succeed in befriending the traumatized starving dog was a misplaced expectation.



> 3) A blizzard is coming in, its a freezing night, and predators lurk on the tundra.  This is going nowhere and its getting dangerous (with the risk of the Exhaustion Track coming in play).




Sounds like normal DM behavior of introducing new content.



> The Ranger player says, "enough of this, I open my pouch, brandish the jerky and move forward to the dog to give it to it manually."  This forces the Charisma check to determine the dog's reaction.
> 
> The GM then says that the dog flattens its ears and growls as the Ranger approaches.  Again, the player is incredulous.  "Wait, what?  This dog is Hostile?  How?"




Misplaced expectations.  The dog should have been defensively hostile in that situation.



> The GM explains his case for a Hostile Starting Attitude (starving, trauma, and the dog appears extremely paranoid by the Ranger...maybe something in its recent past).
> 
> The Ranger player is incredulous.  Even if they buy the Starting Attitude of Hostile, it should have been moved to Indifferent from the prior actions of saving the dog...but...sure.




Depending upon the circumstances of saving the dog it may be an impact or not - since you didn't elaborate on how then this part cannot be judged.



> A Charisma check is virtually pointless here as the Ranger would need a 20 in order to get it.
> 
> 4)  Alright, _Animal Friendship_ it is!
> 
> GM rolls in secret behind the screen and gets only a 2, but comes back with "the dog furrows its brow and emits a low growl; its clearly not ensorcelled".




Finally an example of forcing - profound unfairness (assuming dice fixing to that extent is frowned upon at that table - but under some tables even that wouldn't be viewed as unfair - and without that fundamental unfairness how can it be forcing?)



> In reality:
> 
> The GM made 3 separate moves of Force to enact this block (fudged Animal Handling DC > adversarial, but skillfully justified, Starting Attitude shuts down Charisma check > fudged Wisdom Saving Throw.




There is only 1 clear forcing move here.  The rest of your case rests upon your description of the DM having a desire to keep a certain situation in play a little longer.  But as previously noted - he can have that desire and still abjugate fairly.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 21, 2020)

My second favorite part of the 5e ruleset:  PC Background Features.

In this case of Force we have the Criminal Background:



> FEATURE: CRIMINAL CONTACT
> You have a reliable and trustworthy contact who acts as your liaison to a network of other criminals. You know how to get messages to and from your contact, even over great distances; specifically, you know the local messengers, corrupt caravan masters, and seedy sailors who can deliver messages for you.




The player wants to use their Criminal Contact who doubles as a gondolier who transports folks via the city canals during the day as a legal front for his illicit activities.  The player has desperately tasked him to finesse a message to an illicit spice merchant NPC on the other side of the city who has under surveillance by the City Guard (looking for incriminating activity).  

Fast forward to the evening and the Criminal Contact gondolier is in the clink.  He paid a paper boy to insert a secret message into the folds of the day's paper and drop it on the doorstep of the spice merchant's shop. The City Guard grabbed the paper, chased down the boy, roughed him up for the identity of the person who hired him and made the arrest of the gondolier.

This is clearly a case of a GM (a) using their unique, unbridled access to content creation/the world to manufacture adversarial content, introducing a block which (b) subordinates a player's thematic input (c) via their PC-currency-spent feature (which effectively reads as player fiat and has no action resolution mechanics to resolve).

Now if this was a PBtA move, it would be resolved via 2d6+ modifier (probably Cha).  If they rolled a 6-, this is absolutely an appropriate Hard Move.   Its interesting, follows the fiction, reveals an unwelcome truth, and snowballs the danger into a cascading problem.

But this isn't PBtA and there isn't any action resolution mechanics in play.  

Its a case where a GM vetos a player's input into the gamestate:fiction (which they purchased via PC build) in order to manufacture a block and force the players to engage the situation in an alternative way.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 21, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> Maybe?  When provided a definition I tend to examine it on it's own merits - not necessarily what is intended by the author of said definition - possibly because I'm more of a math person - i'm sure the natural thing for an English person is to try to understand intention and fill in the missing gaps.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No good, makes a judgement call -- Force is a Bad Thing(tm).  This isn't a useful definition of a game technique, but a pejorative.  Also, define "fairly."


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 21, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> No good, makes a judgement call -- Force is a Bad Thing(tm).  This isn't a useful definition of a game technique, but a pejorative.  Also, define "fairly."




That's my point - fairly is in fact present in every definition that's being discussed - it's just not explicitly stated.  That's why forcing isn't just a game technique.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 21, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> The GM can have his own desires about how he wants the situation to play out and still be fair in how he has it play out.  It seems very plausible that a traumatized starving dog runs away from the players, that trying to have it take food from your hand won't work, and that approaching it would be viewed by it as a hostile act leaving it to respond in kind.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm quoting the whole thing, but I really want to address your first sentence.  Sure, a GM might have an idea of how they'd like a situation to play out (I'd say that's already put things in a Forcey place, but okay), but the issue is if they change adjudication or situations to make it so.  This would then be the manipulation of the gamestate that's ignoring or modifying player inputs to achieve an outcome in line with GM preference.  

I'm not a fan of @Manbearcat's example because the starting attitude of the dog should have been apparent to begin with.  There's already a failure of framing which frustrates the PC's inputs -- they want to find and befriend the dog but the GM is hiding crucial information on that attempt.  I'd say that this counts as a fourth instance of Force, that actually enables the next 2.  Which, by the way, without the knowledge of the dog's starting attitude, the first instance in MBC's post isn't really Force -- the GM has a hostile dog, so the DC is going to be higher to handle the animal -- a 12 won't cut it.  But, the GM should frame the situation and let the player know the difficulty of their task, at least in general terms, so this, I guess, is Force as presented.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 21, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> Its a case where a GM vetos a player's input into the gamestate:fiction (which they purchased via PC build) in order to manufacture a block and force the players to engage the situation in an alternative way.




Not only that, but it also renders the player's choice of the criminal background largely meaningless. When this stuff comes up in play, it's like "hey you could have told me that you didn't like the criminal background ability, and I would have chosen a background whose ability you liked and which I could get to use." 

I mean, background is a pretty big factor in character creation, and this takes away a big part of it for that character.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 21, 2020)

@FrogReaver 

That whole thing was made up (well, not made up...it was a Dungeon World game I ran that was transliterated to 5e).  Just assume that (a) the dog shouldn't have been Hostile because of x, y, z (make something up that is intuitive at the table) and (b) assume the circumstances of the PCs saving the dog at the encampment before it fled were significantly impactful to the dog and that having a friendly face amidst a recent history of hardship would be sufficiently compelling for the dog (and that this is inferable from a players' perspective).  Fill in the blanks as you see fit to get there.

Just figure out fiction where DC 10 is very reasonable for the Animal Handling check and Indifferent Starting Attitude for the dog is sensibly inferred by the players engaging with the fiction.

I'm not sure why you're defending an imaginary GM here?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 21, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> That's my point - fairly is in fact present in every definition that's being discussed - it's just not explicitly stated.  That's why forcing isn't just a game technique.



It's not the definition @Manbearcat presented, and it's not in my understanding of that definition.  I can think of a number of fair uses of Force.  The examples @pemerton posted in regards to waiving a wandering monster check or revealing a secret door for free are both examples of Force, but not unfair.  I think if you use Force to, say, ameliorate a string of odd occurances using dice, that's not an unfair use.  

Force isn't inherently bad.  It's a tool that can be used, and one that's easily abused.  I think we do a disservice by always presenting Force as a negative.  Lots of games use Force and are very fun and enjoyed by their players.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 21, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> It's not the definition @Manbearcat presented, and it's not in my understanding of that definition.  I can think of a number of fair uses of Force.  The examples @pemerton posted in regards to waiving a wandering monster check or revealing a secret door for free are both examples of Force, but not unfair.  I think if you use Force to, say, ameliorate a string of odd occurances using dice, that's not an unfair use.




The general consensus of this thread was that waving the wandering monster checks was "unfair".  @pemerton and @Manbearcat were in agreement on that - unless I misunderstood their positions at that time.



> Force isn't inherently bad.  It's a tool that can be used, and one that's easily abused.  I think we do a disservice by always presenting Force as a negative.  Lots of games use Force and are very fun and enjoyed by their players.




I've still not seen a definition that allows for positive forcing that isn't so broad that nearly everything the DM does meets the definition.  I think the only way to constrain force is to either look at unfairness or intent - which are either subjective, unknowable or both.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 21, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> The general consensus of this thread was that waving the wandering monster checks was "unfair".  @pemerton and @Manbearcat were in agreement on that - unless I misunderstood their positions at that time.



I didn't see @pemerton think it was unfair -- he seems to be in favor of it.  I'm certainly in favor of the waiving, as describe.  I, however disagree with @pemerton in that I think it's a clear example of Force while he characterized it as barely Force.  I don't see much use in categorizing levels of Force -- it all does the same stuff and it's important to be aware you're using it, not justify this use because it's barely Force.

I can't say if @Manbearcat thinks it unfair.



> I've still not seen a definition that allows for positive forcing that isn't so broad that nearly everything the DM does meets the definition.  I think the only way to constrain force is to either look at unfairness or intent - which are either subjective, unknowable or both.



Again, the definition provided by @Manbearcat, when considered as I suggest -- in the moment -- allows for many "fair" uses of Force.  I prefer this definition precisely because it describes an event but doesn't categorize it as good or bad.  Adding a consideration of 'fairness' means that citing any given use of Force is also saying that it's bad play.  I'm not interested in definitions that include badwrongfun because they're not useful to examine what happens in play, but instead to judge play.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 21, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> I'm not interested in definitions that include badwrongfun because they're not useful to examine what happens in play, but instead to judge play.




And I don't think you are interested in definitions that are so overly broad they are useless as evidenced by your issues with pemerton's forcing definition.  

I don't see what you are seeing in @Manbearcat's definition.  I'll try to revisit it.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 21, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> Again, the definition provided by @Manbearcat, when considered as I suggest -- in the moment -- allows for many "fair" uses of Force.  I prefer this definition precisely because it describes an event but doesn't categorize it as good or bad.  Adding a consideration of 'fairness' means that citing any given use of Force is also saying that it's bad play.  I'm not interested in definitions that include badwrongfun because they're not useful to examine what happens in play, but instead to judge play.




So take a step back and suppose for a moment that I'm right in general that there is no way to define forcing that can include "good" forcing without being overly broad.  If that's the case then the only useful definition of forcing is the one based on fairness - wouldn't you agree?


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 21, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> @FrogReaver
> 
> That whole thing was made up (well, not made up...it was a Dungeon World game I ran that was transliterated to 5e).  Just assume that (a) the dog shouldn't have been Hostile because of x, y, z (make something up that is intuitive at the table) and (b) assume the circumstances of the PCs saving the dog at the encampment before it fled were significantly impactful to the dog and that having a friendly face amidst a recent history of hardship would be sufficiently compelling for the dog (and that this is inferable from a players' perspective).  Fill in the blanks as you see fit to get there.
> 
> ...




Because other than changing the roll of a 2 - that GM played the starving traumatized dog exactly as I would have.  So it's not so much an imaginary GM - it's me.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 21, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> I didn't see @pemerton think it was unfair -- he seems to be in favor of it.  I'm certainly in favor of the waiving, as describe.  I, however disagree with @pemerton in that I think it's a clear example of Force while he characterized it as barely Force.  I don't see much use in categorizing levels of Force -- it all does the same stuff and it's important to be aware you're using it, not justify this use because it's barely Force.
> 
> I can't say if @Manbearcat thinks it unfair.




My understanding is that @pemerton supports ignoring/suspending Wandering Monster checks only in situations where the PCs have already achieved the "win condition" of the dungeon wing; eg cleared it.  I don't know if he feels whether (a) this should be an explicit provision in the rules and/or explicit as a hack while also (b) being transparently conveyed to the players ("you've cleared the wing; no more WMs").

My personal opinion is thus:

Game like 5e/AD&D 2e/original White Wolf Games/James Bond where storytelling and entertainment (S&E for shorthand) are the apex priorities of play and the GM has mandate to make decisions with S&E energizing them...I wouldn't talk about "fair" or "unfair". I would talk about appropriate or coherent GMing (with respect to the game's premise).  As such, "Force in the name of S&E" is appropriate and coherent GMing.  In fact, the case should probably be made that failing to intervene in the name of S&E is inappropriate and incoherent GMing in those systems.

Other games would absolutely call that GMing "unfair", "inappropriate", or "incoherent" with respect to the apex priority of play.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 21, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> Because other than changing the roll of a 2 - that GM played the starving traumatized dog exactly as I would have.  So it's not so much an imaginary GM - it's me.




Can you not envision some kind of backstory (which I didn't canvass or invent) that would mitigate your position here?

Put another way, should all starving, traumatized dogs be Hostile to careful, non-aggressive human interaction with them?

Then add the Ranger aspect of this and revise that to "should all starving, traumatized dogs be Hostile to a person whose life has outfitted them with a skillset that particularly equips them to dealing with such situations?"

We're talking about genre fiction here, replete with Rangers who have a preternatural ability to deal with wildlife.  In mundane, real life alone, people skilled with animals deal with traumatized, starving dogs regularly...and they aren't hostile at some kind of overwhelming rate that its impossible to envision one being "Indifferent" (in D&D terms).  I'm not a Ranger, but I've helped rescue a dog exactly like this...talked to her, soothed her with nonthreatening posture and waited patiently until she trusted me...and fed her right out of my hand.  My guess is, if you Youtube this, its not the most uncommon thing in the world.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 21, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> Can you not envision some kind of backstory (which I didn't canvass or invent) that would mitigate your position here?




Not at the moment.



> Put another way, should all starving, traumatized dogs be Hostile to careful, non-aggressive human interaction with them?
> 
> Then add the Ranger aspect of this and revise that to "should all starving, traumatized dogs be Hostile to a person whose life has outfitted them with a skillset that particularly equips them to dealing with such situations?"




Consider a well trained rogue wanting to pick some pockets.  Can you imagine what would happen if he tried to pick pocket someone while yelling to the top of his lungs "i'm a thief".  Is he going to succeed?  I firmly believe that what you do matters - not just who you are and what you roll.



> We're talking about genre fiction here, replete with Rangers who have a preternatural ability to deal with wildlife.  In mundane, real life alone, people skilled with animals deal with traumatized, starving dogs regularly...and they aren't hostile at some kind of overwhelming rate that its impossible to envision one being "Indifferent" (in D&D terms).  I'm not a Ranger, but I've helped rescue a dog exactly like this...talked to her, soothed her with nonthreatening posture and waited patiently until she trusted me...and fed her right out of my hand.  My guess is, if you Youtube this, its not the most uncommon thing in the world.




And you likely let her come to you instead of approaching her.  Makes a world of difference.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 21, 2020)

@Ovinomancer

Put another way, any game that tells a GM that they're lead storyteller and their job is to entertain and they have a mandate over the rules to make sure everyone is having fun...

That play priority is very much at tension with challenge-based gaming priorities (whether that challenge is tactical decision-making, strategic decision-making, or advocating for your PC's thematic portfolio against ethos/relationship threatening content).


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 21, 2020)

@Ovinomancer 

can you give me an example of something a GM does that does not modify player input?  That's where I'm stuck at.


----------



## Sadras (Feb 21, 2020)

@Manbearcat

I didn't get as clear an answer in the other thread about something and I was hoping to get your opinion on the matter. At the outset I'd just like you to know my players enjoy some GM Force (even on their backgrounds), where much of the heavy lifting is done by the GM, they enjoy the surprises. But that shouldn't influence your opinion.

PC input into his background - PC sword-mage was initially trained by a master who was an apothecarist. DM input into his background - Part of the apothecarists clientelle were some well-to-do ladies seeking potions of charisma/seduction...etc. It was known to the PC he fooled around with some of his clientelle. Anyways this master disappeared suddenly and his lab was trashed.

PC made the assumption it was a jealous husband.

Some adventures later. The master makes a return and leaves again. This process continues on for a year or so, while the PCs engage on a series of quests to destroy a lycanthropic organisation.



Spoiler



The master was the werewolf in charge of the lycanthropic organisation. As an apothecarist, he had been creating potions for his kin which would mask their scent amongst animals, allowing them to travel a lot easier within urban areas. He has stolen this forumla from the Minrothad Guilds during his short stint there. The theft along with a murder of a colleague had activated a Black Seal Warrant (legal assassination - hence his continued disappearing act). He had, during his returns, explained to the PC that this had been a misunderstanding during his time in Minrothad and that the truth was the Guilds were after some of his formulae. He painted them as corrupt capitalists. The PC bought it and so helped him out from time to time (hiding him and giving him cash).



The revelation of his master came about when the party's actions became too difficult to ignore as they racked up success after success against the organisation. In a final effort, the master revealed himself to his former apprentice, saying he was willing to forgive the PCs past misdeeds against his kin if the PC would but just join him.

By me making the master (using no mechanics) the lycanthrope - does that fall into GM force or is that just generating content?


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 21, 2020)

Sadras said:


> @Manbearcat
> 
> I didn't get as clear an answer in the other thread about something and I was hoping to get your opinion on the matter. At the outset I'd just like you to know my players enjoy some GM Force (even on their backgrounds), where much of the heavy lifting is done by the GM. But that shouldn't influence your opinion.
> 
> ...




I know you care more for his answer.

However, for the sake of discussion - my answer is not force -I don't see any unfair manipulation of players here.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 21, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> I'm going to start with (imo), the best part of the ruleset; The Social Interaction conflict mechanics.
> 
> I'm going to use a Ranger trying to entreat a domesticated, traumatized, starving, old dog to come back with her to camp where she hopes to use Speak With Animals to communicate with the creature in the morning (to learn about a situation that the dog witnessed)
> 
> [etc.]



Yeah, the GM messed this up in a few ways and kinda painted himself into a corner.

First off, if you-as-GM want to preserve the mystery and the dog can so easily give all the answers, why introduce the dog at all?

Second, even after you've made the mistake of introducing the dog, all is not lost.  It's an old starving dog and the PCs aren't going to cast _Speak With Animals_ till morning.  Let the Ranger befriend it, warm it up, feed it...and then have it die happy during the night from exhaustion or old age or whatever.  This way the Ranger gets to do her thing yet the mystery remains intact.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 21, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> My second favorite part of the 5e ruleset:  PC Background Features.
> 
> The player wants to use their Criminal Contact who doubles as a gondolier who transports folks via the city canals during the day as a legal front for his illicit activities.  The player has desperately tasked him to finesse a message to an illicit spice merchant NPC on the other side of the city who has under surveillance by the City Guard (looking for incriminating activity).
> 
> ...



Perhaps; and at first glance this looks like all kinds of Force.

BUT, there's also the possibility that the DM did the required rolling and honestly went where her dice led her: the City Guard (already watching the merchant, as noted in the description) rolled well enough to realize there's something fishy about the paper and-or the boy, the boy rolled badly on his attempts to escape, etc. and things developed from there. (that said, finding and arresting the gondolier that fast is a bit over-the-top; but the message being intercepted is a perfectly achievable if perhaps unlikely outcome of the scenario)


----------



## pemerton (Feb 21, 2020)

chaochou said:


> Hahahahaha! I didn't realise we were keeping score!
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I don't agree that subterfuge is a required element



At least here we're in agreement and so the score remains unchanged! - I think force doesn't need to be illusionistic, though often it is.

(Seriously, not keeping score, just knowing myself.)



chaochou said:


> Anyway, the point I was trying to draw out was that for something to be force it must be deployed at a moment of resolution of something which had hitherto been unresolved through play.
> 
> I agree that the GM can plan to deploy force (in all kinds of ways) and adventures can contain all kinds of assumptions and instructions to generate it, but in my view the actual appearance of force is during resolution at a decision point within the gameplay.
> 
> The lack of agreed resolution systems (for example, for evading onrushing armies) is how many games help GMs disguise force



On this one, though, I'm still struggling.

In the dragon army case, the moment of resolution doesn't come until _after_ the framing - which itself, as you note, exploits the lack of resolution rules beyond _we go that way (ie away form them)_. So the force seems to be a consequence of the framing, intended to manipulate the players into making a certain sort of input rather than negating or modifying their prior input.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 21, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> @Ovinomancer
> 
> can you give me an example of something a GM does that does not modify player input?  That's where I'm stuck at.



It appears that you're still looking forward and trying to make the case that any introduction will impact a future player input.  This is trivially obvious, though, so any good faith reading of the definition should not assume a trivially obvious result is intended.  Indeed, we've already spoken on this matter, and I thought agreed that the definition applied at the moment of manipulation.  If we have not, then let us do so now.

In that case, if the players reach a trigger for a wandering monster check, and that indicates one apoears, then this is clearly not a Forceful introduction.  There are countless others.



FrogReaver said:


> So take a step back and suppose for a moment that I'm right in general that there is no way to define forcing that can include "good" forcing without being overly broad.  If that's the case then the only useful definition of forcing is the one based on fairness - wouldn't you agree?



If I, arguendo, accept your premise, then I say we don't need a definition of Force, we already have fair and unfair play.  I don't see usefulness in defining specific instances of unfair play.


----------



## Numidius (Feb 21, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> As in, similar to a GM saying upfront there'll be no Elf PCs in this setting?
> 
> OK, I can kinda see that on the marco scale. On the micro scale, however, the no-Elf thing is done once and that's it: it never really affects the run of play at the table. The wife example, however, does affect the run of play whenever she's brought into it, as she sooner or later must be by the sound of it.
> 
> ...



Sounds reasonable, but I think the premise is misplaced. 
The wife affair is not something to ritually hear about once in a while to make the husband player happy at the expense of the party's ears; it something to be challenged, put up in play, that should promote action, decisions, eventually hard choice and resolution. 
I see your PoV as a neutral d&d Dm, and you already wrote about finding hooks in Pcs backstory in order to foster the adventures you are planning to play. 

"Husband Pc, you went adventuring for almost a year. When you come back, you find home empty: the wife has joined a cult and went on pilgrimage to the (JG's) Dark Tower". 
See? No boring the hell out of anyone... 
But the party decides otherwise, and leave the Dark Tower for later. 
Time passes...
"Dear Party, your investigation on necromancy stuff, leads you to this spreading cult of The Dark Tower. They built a Temple in the capital and, hear, hear, the Wife is in charge!" 
Is anyone bored? 

I guess the above is ok with you, from what I have read you posting, but Gms I have met they won't concede anything to the players desires or backstory. Not even when they ask for detailed backgrounds rooted in the setting. They "kinda forget" during play. And I don't play D&D at all. 

I have personally spoke with Gms that wanted to try Fate/PbtA only to be forced to resist their bad habits of railroading everything they run. They managed to also screw those games, btw. 

My point is: building on Player investment is not a bad thing. The opposite, actually. If that might bore the table: frame a compelling scene for the Husband to foster a hard choice and, once resolved, move on. 

Speaking of which, say the Husband wants now to "save" the Wife from the lure of the Dark tower, bringing her back home to attend domestic business. The party has finished the Dark tower adventure and are about to see if she reconsider, or stays fealty to the dark powers and thus be killed by the Husband. 

Who decides the outcome? 

Will she erupts in tears asking mercy, or die with a grin? Or just pretend to feel guilty, only to save her life? 

(This reminds me of the climatic scene in Legend the movie by Ridley Scott) 

Gm decides? Players decide? A D100 is rolled as per OD&D sidebar rule? Maybe a reaction table with modifiers is rolled upon?


----------



## Nagol (Feb 21, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> @Ovinomancer
> 
> can you give me an example of something a GM does that does not modify player input?  That's where I'm stuck at.




Any time the GM applies the rules as negotiated he isn't modifying player input.  Any time the GM replaces the expected rule set with his own desire, he is modifying the input the players receive and thus potentially their output.

In the criminal background case, this is obvious at the table and is specifically designed to modify the player output.  The DM is trying to force the players to become more personally involved by negating abilities purchased by the player through fiat.

.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 21, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> Alright, so I'm going to throw out some examples of GM Force, all using the same ruleset; 5e D&D (as everyone here is at least passingly familiar with it).
> 
> I'm going to start with (imo), the best part of the ruleset; The Social Interaction conflict mechanics.
> 
> ...




For 5e, I see two clear cases of force.  Obviously, the two fudged results.
The adversarial starting position is less clear in 5e.  To my memory (please correct me if I'm wrong),  5e doesn't offer a initial reaction chart, suggest a starting Charisma check, or frankly have any other mechanism other than GM fiat for deciding initial social position.

Now, the players may roll their eyes at how unnaturally the DM is running a creature (and that would be nothing new!), but setting that initial position is directly in the realm of fiat to begin with.


----------



## chaochou (Feb 21, 2020)

Just in terms of definitions here are mine:

*GM Force*
Unnecessary control of the fiction during a moment of resolution

*Railroading*
Application of force to ensure pre-determined events arise within the fiction




pemerton said:


> On this one, though, I'm still struggling.
> 
> In the dragon army case, the moment of resolution doesn't come until _after_ the framing - which itself, as you note, exploits the lack of resolution rules beyond _we go that way (ie away form them)_. So the force seems to be a consequence of the framing, intended to manipulate the players into making a certain sort of input rather than negating or modifying their prior input.




Yes, I can see where you're coming from. I thought about this too, and one thing that arose in my mind was - what if we were playing Burning Wheel and one of the players had 'Underground Tunnels-wise'? Would this framing not simply be an opportunity for them to showcase their ability to find a way past the approaching army?

In other words, the supposed force within the framing is actually a result of the unsuitability of the resolution system to cope, and the GM is then expected to exploit that gap in the system (as well as a broader assumption of GM authority in all aspects of setting, situation, plot etc) to herd the players.

But if the players have the resource of a robust action resolution system (in Apoc World, Blades, Burning Wheel, maybe Cortex +. potentially even a skill challenge in 4e) then it could be brilliantly dramatic framing which illuminates important elements of characterisation in keeping with the play priorities of those games.

I think this lead towards a discussion about the idea of 'unnecessary' - which will be dependent on the play priorities of the system and group.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 21, 2020)

Nagol said:


> For 5e, I see two clear cases of force.  Obviously, the two fudged results.
> The adversarial starting position is less clear in 5e.  To my memory (please correct me if I'm wrong),  5e doesn't offer a initial reaction chart, suggest a starting Charisma check, or frankly have any other mechanism other than GM fiat for deciding initial social position.
> 
> Now, the players may roll their eyes at how unnaturally the DM is running a creature (and that would be nothing new!), but setting that initial position is directly in the realm of fiat to begin with.




I definitely agree that framing (which is the issue with the dog’s Starting Attitude) and introducing consequences of action resolution (re-framing) are the murkiest areas of Force.

If a GM fakes setting a DC (because the entire process is GM-Facing unless the GM announces the DC before the roll) in order to block a move when a player gets a middling result, that is Force. Same goes for a Saving Throw.

However, here are my thoughts on framing of the Starting Attitude and why it’s Force:

1) The GM wants the move to fail. The players can’t know that for sure but they can only suspect that. We can know though (because we’re making this up so we can look under the hood).

2) The GM knows the Ranger has a +0 Charisma check here, so if he goes with Hostile, he nearly ensures a failed move (the Ranger would need a 20, DC 20 for Hostile, to get the dog to accompany her back to camp).


This also gets back to “lead storyteller”, “entertainer”, the action resolution being beholden to GM-facing meditation, and absolute GM authority over framing (and with lead storyteller and entertainer as their hat to wear).

With those 4 things, framing becomes a very powerful tool for Force.

Contrast it with Blades. The GMing ethos is hugely different, setting Position and Effect are transparent, table-facing procedures where conversation is encouraged, and the players are rolling all of the dice.

You literally could_not have the above scenario happen in Blades (and the game’s ethos actively pushes back against it).

The Position would never be Desperate (Hostile dog) given all of the factors involved. At most it would be Risky (Indifferent dog) but probably Controlled after all of the factors are collated.

Finally, a tangent.

I think the above is also a very strong example of how this arrangement can make for a difficult go for mundane characters in non-combat conflict resolution (particularly social conflict with characters who aren’t entirely built for it).

Consider that this should be an absolute archetypal shtick for a Ranger without Animal Friendship. This should be their wheelhouse.

However, they have to overcome 4 things to achieve the win condition of the conflict:

1) Interact with the dog in a way that is sufficient to the GM to allow for an Animal Handling check (which should give them advantage over a PC who just has Insight).

2) Achieve the AH DC to gain access to an IBF to leverage for Advantage on CHA check or change the dogs Attitude for the CHA check.

3) Deal with the GM’s authority over framing (which will dictate the ease or impossibility of the CHA check).

4) Make the CHA check.

Personally, I would think that a level 2 Ranger should succeed at this social conflict with the dog at a VERY high rate. But due to mismatch of expectations of rules and/or framing handling (even without actual Force), the % chance of success can decrease significantly and/or be turned impossible.

It gets worse if you’re just a Survivalist/Outdoorsmen Fighter without Animal Handling.

But a spellcaster needs just one failed Saving Throw (and possibly has the means to create Disadvantage on it).

@Sadras , I’ll digest your example afterwhile and give my thoughts.

@chaochou How about “during a moment of framing and/or action resolution”?


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 21, 2020)

One quick thing.

You could easily reverse the Ranger > Dog social conflict:

The framing is Indifferent > the Ranger fails the AH for the IBF but the GM exerts Force, turning it into success, and lets her parley that to changing the dog’s Starting Attitude to Friendly which is DC 0 for the CHA check (no risks involved).

They’ve got the dog. Good story, everyone is entertained (though the Ranger’s fair chance to reach the loss condition was subordinated by Force). That’s a job well done in terms of play ethos.


----------



## chaochou (Feb 21, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> How about “during a moment of framing and/or action resolution”?




Hi @Manbearcat  - you'll have to forgive me, I've not had a chance to keep up with every example and strand of the thread.

I think like you and @pemerton the thoughts and options are still coalescing. Right now I think framing includes an option to plan force into the ensuing action. But the enactment of it still comes at the point of resolution.

I'm open to other possibilities though...


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 21, 2020)

@Manbearcat  - The struggles of mundane characters in non-combat conflict resolution is one of D&D's biggest holes IMO. You're right, that should be precisely in the Ranger's wheelhouse and the rules do an indifferent to poor job reflecting that.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 21, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> I definitely agree that framing (which is the issue with the dog’s Starting Attitude) and introducing consequences of action resolution (re-framing) are the murkiest areas of Force.
> 
> If a GM fakes setting a DC (because the entire process is GM-Facing unless the GM announces the DC before the roll) in order to block a move when a player gets a middling result, that is Force. Same goes for a Saving Throw.
> 
> ...




I agree the DM is being a Richard.  But one can be a Richard without using force.  I see force as a table technique.  If we extend the hypothetical back a bit and make the dog's appearance part of a pre-written adventure with the designer assigning the hostile attitude to the dog then the DM was just portraying it as provided and I wouldn't see it as force.  Dumb, probably.  Possibly worth an application of force (by having the dog act more believably than the designer mandated) to correct an unnoticed flaw in the adventure design that should have been caught on an initial scan.  A designer can't force though a designer can ask force be used to achieve a specific result.

For example, I don't think an adventure having an army march towards the adventurers is force.  That's just part of the scenario parameters.  I think having instructions to counter and nullify any attempt other than rush to the target city to avoid the army as calling for the use of force at the table.

There is a published VtM scenario that has always stuck with me that illustrates this well, I think.  The PC vampires are to be ambushed by a powerful rival at a entertainment venue.  The GM is supposed to arrange the opponent manages to grapple a PC near a column that coincidently has a piece of wood sticking out of it.  The designer's goal is the PC will extract the wood and use it to injure/fend off their grappler.  The reason is the wood is the remnants of a stake that forced an ancient vampire buried in the column into dormancy and its removal will start the actual adventure. 

The adventure designer is calling for absolutely HUGE amounts of force to be used.  The GM needs to negate any other (much more tactically sound) combat options: guns, claws, retreat, what-have-you.  Simultaneously he needs to choreograph the fight positions and arrange the grapple to occur at one particular place on the map.  AND he needs to fudge all the combat rolls to ensure the combat continues until the grapple can happen, the grapple succeeds but not too well, and the player succeeds in using the wood as a weapon.

He also needs to make sure the player sees the wood as an opportunity worth pursuing as opposed to a trap choice.  This final one isn't force.  It is social engineering which is another technique I strongly dislike GMs using.

As to your tangent: I agree.  It was one of the let-downs I felt when I first reviewed 5e.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 21, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> *If *(i) that provision is explicated in either the rules or as a table hack, *and *(ii) the actualization of it is manifestly transparent during play ("guys, this wing of the dungeon is completed; Wandering Monsters turned off"), then its not Force.
> 
> b) If (i) and (ii) aren't both true in a game where strategic decision-making is a focal point of player input...then turning Wandering Monsters off is almost surely a momentary application of Force



You're putting very hard demands on the system here - completely abandoning the "ecology simulation" aspect you identified upthread.

Also, turning off as a blanket rule then gives licence to the players to play carelessly on their trek through the defeated wing of the dungeon. It's only a party that is "doing everything possible to travel quickly and quietly to their planned destination" (DMG p 9) that is entitled to relief from _excessive _wandering monsters.

One feature of the DMG is that p 9 promises a section on wandering monsters that will explain two reasons why they are a part of the game; but I'm pretty sure there is no such section. And the only other discussion of relief from wandering monsters I found is this, on p 38:

On occasion, a party may wish to cease movement and "hole up" for a long period, perhaps overnight, resting and recuperating or recovering spells. This does not exempt them from occasional checks for wandering monsters, though the frequency may be moderated somewhat, depending on conditions.​
A similar approach might help for the party travelling quickly and quietly through a known area - reduced frequency at least reduces the likelihood of breakdown between system purpose and system consequence, though can't eliminate it in all cases.

This is never going to be a practical issue for me - the likelihood of me ever running a dungeoneering game where this issue might come up is near enough to zero to be rounded down to that. What I think is interesting is how Gygax struggles to make his design fully coherent, even though - on the face of things - it looks OK (I mean, how often in other threads here and elsewhere do we see discussion of the importance of _wandering monsters as clock_? It comes up all the time.)

The issue might be solved by substituting a completely different resolution system - eg a DW-style "move" for travelling through known-and-cleared dungeon precincts which is modified by precautions taken and so preserves the roll of skill while protecting against the slim chance of brutal hosing. But that would be so far away from the rest of the wargaming mechanics of the system that it would create a different sort of coherence problem. _Zoinks_ unless one were to adapt the wilderness evasion rules to this end. Though they're a bit half-baked as they stand (eg having a ranger doesn't help though it obviously should).

It's probably not a surprise that thinking about one weakness in the classic D&D design turns up another.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 21, 2020)

I think we all have a pretty good (and consensus) feeling on how Force applies to action resolution.

I think it would probably be good to discuss how Force applies to framing and and content introduction introduction as a result of action resolution (eg consequences and whether they honor the player’s goal and what was at stake), because it appears that is where there is the most daylight between the participants of the conversation.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 21, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> Introducing content is always done to form a narrative



I know you've posted more but it's well past midnight here and so I'm only responding to this bit before sleeping.

I don't think you're right here. There can be cases where content is introduced to form a narrative: eg the dragon armies (to drive the PCs to the ruined city); perhaps the secret door case, gently guiding the PCs that way.

But content can be introduced without it being to form any particular narrative. I think I mentioned upthread that, in my Burning Wheel game, I (ie my PC) found letters from my mother in Evard's tower, apparently implying that she is Evard's daughter. That's content, but it's not introduced to form any particular narrative. I don't know what's going to flow from this;  nor does my GM.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 21, 2020)

chaochou said:


> I can see where you're coming from. I thought about this too, and one thing that arose in my mind was - what if we were playing Burning Wheel and one of the players had 'Underground Tunnels-wise'? Would this framing not simply be an opportunity for them to showcase their ability to find a way past the approaching army?
> 
> In other words, the supposed force within the framing is actually a result of the unsuitability of the resolution system to cope, and the GM is then expected to exploit that gap in the system (as well as a broader assumption of GM authority in all aspects of setting, situation, plot etc) to herd the players.
> 
> But if the players have the resource of a robust action resolution system (in Apoc World, Blades, Burning Wheel, maybe Cortex +. potentially even a skill challenge in 4e) then it could be brilliantly dramatic framing which illuminates important elements of characterisation in keeping with the play priorities of those games.



I agree with everything you say here about systems. (In Cortex+ the approach armies would be a Scene Distinction, and the players would have their PCs escape by wearing down the distinction - in my LotR game a couple of weeks ago this was the method used to undertake journeys (eg wear down the Long Journey scene distinction) and also to overcome Uncertainty About What to Do.)

I agree that the force in the framing is caused by the inadequate resolution vis-a-vis that framing. I'm not persuaded that that makes it _at the moment of resolution_ - either logically or temporally. But I'm not entirely sure what's at stake with some of these finer points of distinction.



chaochou said:


> *GM Force*
> Unnecessary control of the fiction during a moment of resolution
> 
> *Railroading*
> Application of force to ensure pre-determined events arise within the fiction



You're prising apart here what I've run together with my _guiding or manipulating to a fore-ordained goal_.

How do you see force (in your sense) taking place other than in railroading (in your sense) cases? I'm not thinking of anything at the moment, but that's probably because I'm tired and need to sleep!


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 21, 2020)

pemerton said:


> But content can be introduced without it being to form any particular narrative. I think I mentioned upthread that, in my Burning Wheel game, I (ie my PC) found letters from my mother in Evard's tower, apparently implying that she is Evard's daughter. That's content, but it's not introduced to form any particular narrative. I don't know what's going to flow from this;  nor does my GM.



I agree with you. Some games do a much better job creating space and motivation for this kind of introduction though. The notion of "to find out what happens" isn't native to D&D for the most part, at least not the same way it is to some other games. Especially not in regards to character related stuff.


----------



## Sadras (Feb 21, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> One quick thing.
> 
> You could easily reverse the Ranger > Dog social conflict:
> 
> ...




In this example, as DM, I could see myself just as easily give away the IBF without a need for a roll if we are talking about a rescue, a ranger and proficiency with the AH skill. That is a clear success to me - if anything I might only use the AH check to determine the degree of trust/bond that may now start existing between the ranger and the animal.

Interestingly, I think it was @Imaro or @Maxperson, I forget which, who some time back on one of these types of threads suggested the same thing you're suggesting, that setting a DC is essentially playing to the GM's bias and thus many if not all games have this GM force however much it is*. He was somewhat contested on this (because mechanics were used) and now here you are saying the same thing, but no one has raised issue with it. I bring this up not as to make some sort of jab at you or anyone else, only that I feel we (me inclusive) need to be a little more considerate of everyone's views and not immediately dismissive because the _other_ side mentioned it. 

Otherwise great example!

* @Ovinomancer upthread mentioned that (to him) the degree of GM force _matters little or is irrelevant_ (paraphrasing somewhat) only in that it exists.


----------



## chaochou (Feb 21, 2020)

pemerton said:


> You're prising apart here what I've run together with my _guiding or manipulating to a fore-ordained goal_.
> 
> How do you see force (in your sense) taking place other than in railroading (in your sense) cases? I'm not thinking of anything at the moment, but that's probably because I'm tired and need to sleep!




*GM Force*
Unnecessary control of the fiction during a moment of resolution

I think there's the possibility of force being inadvertent especially when one is learning a system and trying to make Apocalypse World or Blades or Burning Wheel work without quite getting it, but still without the intent to lead players down a pre-defined path.

And so I prefer the split in the acknowledgement that one doesn't automatically lead to another - there is a question of intent there.

Again, probably finer distinction than this discussion requires - I'm just adding my personal conceptions in case they are helpful.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 21, 2020)

Sadras said:


> In this example, as DM, I could see myself just as easily give away the IBF without a need for a roll if we are talking about a rescue, a ranger and proficiency with the AH skill. That is a clear success to me - if anything I might only use the AH check to determine the degree of trust/bond that may now start existing between the ranger and the animal.
> 
> Interestingly, I think it was @Imaro or @Maxperson, I forget which, who some time back on one of these types of threads suggested the same thing you're suggesting, that setting a DC is essentially playing to the GM's bias and thus many if not all games have this GM force however much it is*. He was somewhat contested on this (because mechanics were used) and now here you are saying the same thing, but no one has raised issue with it. I bring this up not as to make some sort of jab at you or anyone else, only that I feel we (me inclusive) need to be a little more considerate of everyone's views and not immediately dismissive because the _other_ side mentioned it.
> 
> ...



Not quite.  When _classifying _Force, I don't think degree matters.  It very much does if I consider if I'm good with an application.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 21, 2020)

Numidius said:


> Sounds reasonable, but I think the premise is misplaced.
> The wife affair is not something to ritually hear about once in a while to make the husband player happy at the expense of the party's ears; it something to be challenged, put up in play, that should promote action, decisions, eventually hard choice and resolution.
> I see your PoV as a neutral d&d Dm, and you already wrote about finding hooks in Pcs backstory in order to foster the adventures you are planning to play.



I wrote about it in the spirit of the discussion; in actuality I generally try to avoid mining character backgrounds for adventure hooks unless the player somehow initiates it.

Part of my reasoning for this is that while some players delve into character backgrounds, others just don't care and would rather play in the moment; and I don't want to end up focusing on some specific characters more than others over the long term.



> "Husband Pc, you went adventuring for almost a year. When you come back, you find home empty: the wife has joined a cult and went on pilgrimage to the (JG's) Dark Tower".
> See? No boring the hell out of anyone...
> But the party decides otherwise, and leave the Dark Tower for later.
> Time passes...
> ...



In this case, likely not.

My at-the-moment example is in the game I play in, in one party two of the PCs (mine is one) have well-laid-out backgrounds including family etc.  Add to this, that party's most recent adventures involved rescuing said families, and my bet would be that the other players at the table are sick and bloody tired of hearing about our families - and I can't say I blame them! 



> I guess the above is ok with you, from what I have read you posting, but Gms I have met they won't concede anything to the players desires or backstory. Not even when they ask for detailed backgrounds rooted in the setting. They "kinda forget" during play. And I don't play D&D at all.



Yeah, I get this.  My workaround is to not ask for detailed backgrounds. 



> My point is: building on Player investment is not a bad thing. The opposite, actually. If that might bore the table: frame a compelling scene for the Husband to foster a hard choice and, once resolved, move on.
> 
> Speaking of which, say the Husband wants now to "save" the Wife from the lure of the Dark tower, bringing her back home to attend domestic business. The party has finished the Dark tower adventure and are about to see if she reconsider, or stays fealty to the dark powers and thus be killed by the Husband.
> 
> ...



IME, chances are none of the above would happen. 

The players/PCs would most likely come up with a third option, probably involving neutralizing and capturing (but not killing!) the wife, taking her back to town, and getting her sorted out there via high-powered spellcraft.

As for her reaction, that'd be the GM's call if she's an NPC and her player's call if she's a PC.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 21, 2020)

pemerton said:


> You're putting very hard demands on the system here - completely abandoning the "ecology simulation" aspect you identified upthread.




The "ecology simulation" aspect is only relevant insofar as players have a substrate to make inference.  If the wing is cleared, (a) we're simply simulating a collapsed ecology and (b) no more inferences should need be made for delving in that wing!



> Also, turning off as a blanket rule then gives licence to the players to play carelessly on their trek through the defeated wing of the dungeon. It's only a party that is "doing everything possible to travel quickly and quietly to their planned destination" (DMG p 9) that is entitled to relief from _excessive _wandering monsters.




Torchbearer has a very simple, elegant, and well-integrated answer to this:

1)  The Light clock and "The Grind" (the Condition clock) are Turn-centered.

2)  A Turn is either a Conflict or a Test so they're dynamic time-wise; they can be a 10 minute navigation of an obstacle, a brief skirmish, or a night's watch.

Failure in a Test or Conflict results in either (a) Success but an accrued Condition or (b) a Twist (this is Torchbearer's analogue to Wandering Monsters).

Twists can be Monster, Wilderness, Dungeon, Talking, Personal, Magic, Prayer.  Basic and AD&D (if necessary) can easily use this tech in the stead of Wandering Monsters (in the case where "the wing has been cleared"), just take the Monster and Talking tables and the appropriate locale (Wilderness or Dungeon) off of the list and roll like you would a random encounter when an Exploration Turn results in some kind of mishap.



> One feature of the DMG is that p 9 promises a section on wandering monsters that will explain two reasons why they are a part of the game; but I'm pretty sure there is no such section. And the only other discussion of relief from wandering monsters I found is this, on p 38:
> 
> On occasion, a party may wish to cease movement and "hole up" for a long period, perhaps overnight, resting and recuperating or recovering spells. This does not exempt them from occasional checks for wandering monsters, though the frequency may be moderated somewhat, depending on conditions.​




Torchbearer would just handle this as a Night's Watch conflict with relevant Twist or Success w/ Condition at the end.



> A similar approach might help for the party travelling quickly and quietly through a known area - reduced frequency at least reduces the likelihood of breakdown between system purpose and system consequence, though can't eliminate it in all cases.
> 
> This is never going to be a practical issue for me - the likelihood of me ever running a dungeoneering game where this issue might come up is near enough to zero to be rounded down to that. What I think is interesting is how Gygax struggles to make his design fully coherent, even though - on the face of things - it looks OK (I mean, how often in other threads here and elsewhere do we see discussion of the importance of _wandering monsters as clock_? It comes up all the time.)
> 
> ...




In all of these, the answer is like the above.  Just make an Exploration Turn a dynamic thing temporally w/ either a Test or a Conflict w/ relevant Twist or Success w/ Condition at the end.

Torchbearer just flat solved all of these problems through well-integrated systemization and extremely clear GMing.  D&D (whether its Moldvay Basic, AD&D, or 5e) could just reverse engineer them and integrate them into their system architecture.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 21, 2020)

Sadras said:


> @Manbearcat
> 
> I didn't get as clear an answer in the other thread about something and I was hoping to get your opinion on the matter. At the outset I'd just like you to know my players enjoy some GM Force (even on their backgrounds), where much of the heavy lifting is done by the GM, they enjoy the surprises. But that shouldn't influence your opinion.
> 
> ...




So, in some games, (Dogs and Cortex+, for example) the relationship that is embedded in the PC background would involve the ability to invoke a Die that helps in conflicts (like a d8) and a Die that complicates your life (a d4 and you get a token in C+ or the likelihood of earning what is tantamount to "xp" in Dogs).  This is player-facing tech, however.  

If you invoke your relationship as a complication and new obstacle has to be authored as a consequence of action resolution fallout, what might manifest is something like what you're describing above; the GM authors some new fiction surrounding your master that may test your relationship or that may emotionally injure you (weaponizing the relationship).

As far as is "is you making the master the lycanthrope Force" goes, that is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too zoomed out.  That scale isn't really a test for "is this Force?"  I mean, broadly, authoring backstory preemptively isn't Force.  However, you can certainly impose fiction upon play that nullifies player input and controls the gamestate by leveraging that pre-authored backstory during action resolution, during situation-framing, or during situation-reframing (post conflict resolution).

You would need to zoom in a whole lot tighter on singular instances of play for me to have an opinion on the above content and Force.  

To repeat, high resolution metaplot and high resolution setting aren't Force as a matter of mere existence. Its just that they can easily just be used for such (and the temptation is often there due to GM investment in (a) their creation broadly, (b) the time and energy poured into it, and (c) the fact that they feel most acquainted with it and therefore perhaps better prepared to deploy it vs something improved on the spot).


----------



## Nagol (Feb 21, 2020)

Your Torchbearer sounds very little like the game I was playing the '90s.  Is it a (relatively) new game?  The one I remember had an abstract encumbrance system (PCs could carry a fixed number of items), a complex magic system involving a "rainbow" of schools (wood, elemental, etc.), physical nodes of magic used to channel for each school and casting got faster the more nodes you channeled through.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 21, 2020)

Nagol said:


> Your Torchbearer sounds very little like the game I was playing the '90s.  Is it a (relatively) new game?  The one I remember had an abstract encumbrance system (PCs could carry a fixed number of items), a complex magic system involving a "rainbow" of schools (wood, elemental, etc.), physical nodes of magic used to channel for each school and casting got faster the more nodes you channeled through.




Luke Crane's Torchbearer

Mouse Guard/BW hack in the vein of Moldvay Basic


----------



## Nagol (Feb 21, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> Luke Crane's Torchbearer
> 
> Mouse Guard/BW hack in the vein of Moldvay Basic




Ah!  Very different then.  My memory is of a streamlined RQ with an overly complex magic system glued on.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 21, 2020)

Nagol said:


> Ah!  Very different then.  My memory is of a streamlined RQ with an overly complex magic system glued on.




Yeah, definitely not the same!  For my mileage, its the best Dungeon Crawl game on the market and its not really close.

Are you familiar with the video game Darkest Dungeon?  It was inspired by Torchbearer so you would have a rough approximation if you're familiar with it.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 21, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> So, in some games, (Dogs and Cortex+, for example) the relationship that is embedded in the PC background would involve the ability to invoke a Die that helps in conflicts (like a d8) and a Die that complicates your life (a d4 and you get a token in C+ or the likelihood of earning what is tantamount to "xp" in Dogs).  This is player-facing tech, however.
> 
> If you invoke your relationship as a complication and new obstacle has to be authored as a consequence of action resolution fallout, what might manifest is something like what you're describing above; the GM authors some new fiction surrounding your master that may test your relationship or that may emotionally injure you (weaponizing the relationship).
> 
> ...



I dunno. If were talking about 5e, backstory is strongly presumed to be the player's baliwick before being introduced into play.  I'm very reluctant to rewrite backstories like the "surprise, you master is a werewolf!" because is does override player input.  Now, if that happens during play because the player indicated that was up for grabs, then I'd say rewriting an important element of player introduced fiction to fit a GM's storyline sounds quite a lot like Force.

If were talking other games, where backstory is up for grabs, thise at least require nechanical resolution to see this example bear out.

My 5e game has an instance similar to this because I've invoked a nemisis from a PC's background.  The background has this nemisis as someone responsible fir destroying the character's clan, leaving few survivors.  As this is a Planescape game, I took the liberty of having this nemisis' plots be at a planar scale, but other than invoking him, I've done little extrapolation.  This led to a moment in play of another players saying, "wait, is this <nemisis> guy a dwarf like <character>?"  I looked to the player and saud, "well, is he?" The answer was, "you know, I'm not sure."  And, bam, now what the nemesis is is up for grabs.

Alternatively, another player is an escaped thrall of mindflayers, but has no memory of before thralldom.  I have a rule in this campaign that PCs don't due unless the player says so, but choosing this option means I get creative license to be mean.  This PC elected to not die, and so I introduced that when he came to, he recalled that he had volunteered for thralldom, but diesn't remember why.  I had that license because he invoked the death rule and I chose that because I knew it would torture the player far worse than PC death eould have.

I'd say the latter was Force, even thoigh I had loose permission, but I'd say that oermission was to engage in Force, not make it not Firce.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 22, 2020)

@Ovinomancer 

I think these are my thoughts as it pertains to 5e:

1) A GM has huge latitude when it comes to authorship and authority with the roles of lead storyteller and entertainer.

But...

2) Ideals, Bonds, Flaws and Background Traits give players some domain that is out of bounds because it’s fundamental to a player’s conception of their PC. Further, some classes have some Fiat ability that doesn’t engage with the action resolution mechanics.

If a GM effs with those (either by leveraging negating material during situation-framing that is pre-authored or by introducing that same negating content in the course of mediating action resolution), then that would be Force. 

I’m not sure @Sadras did that here. If he did, then yeah, that is Force.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 22, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> @Ovinomancer
> 
> I think these are my thoughts as it pertains to 5e:
> 
> ...



Yeah, 5e gives zero guidance as to what's open to.GM authority.  An offical adventure even has to GM assign flaws to PCs if certain events occur.  So, if we cleave to the 5e rules as presented, you're right that there are very few limits to GM authority.

But....

The definition we're using doesn't check authority.  In many cases of Force talked about, authority exists over tgat arra of the game but it's still Force because legitimate player input is overridden.  In the instant case, I'd say that while the GM has few limits on fictional authority in 5e doesn't mean it's not replacing player input with GM preferred material.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 22, 2020)

I think perhaps we’ve reached the point in the conversation where we need to stipulate what constitutes “input” broadly and both system-specific.

Every wish and aspiration that a player has is certainly not input. However, particular PC build aspects and system-specific widgets, the intent of action declarations and the orientation of decision-points are 100 % “input”. 

The line between “input” and “social contract obligations” gets a little fuzzy on the other stuff...and it shifts system by system as the authority distribution of the participants and the game’s priorities/agenda changes.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 22, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> When content is introduced players must either ignore it or interact with it.  Part 1 should be obvious - if they interact with the content then introducing that content modified their input by getting them to interact with the new content.  Part 2 isn't quite as obvious - if they ignore the content then introducing the content modified their input by getting them to ignore the new content.  In either case their input is modified from where it previously was.



I don't want to go too far down this rabbithole - but if player input hasn't occurred yet then it can't be _nullified_. Nor can it be _modified_. It can be _instigated_.

This is what I've been focusing on with @chaochou, and @Manbearcat around the DL dragon armies case - there are some different analyses going on, and probably more posts I haven't read yet, but my take is that this is not a modification or nullification of player input but nevertheless is force because it guides/manipulates towards an outcome.



Ovinomancer said:


> The "guidance" you speak of is hard to separate from legitimate content introduction.  The only this you have here is 'foreordained conclusion'.  This is a hard sell, as if I have an idea the night before a game of Blades that I think might be neat, and an opportunity arises in game that fits, if I deploy that using my authority to frame I'm not engaged in guidance to a foreordained conclusion, I'm introducing an idea I may have though earlier.



I agree that it's tricky. That's why (as I may have posted upthread, or maybe in another parallel thread) I think _framing_ is such a key GM skill, especially once the game moves beyond exploration of a pre-mapped-andkeyed site.

So you're correct that the _fore-ordained conclusion _is carrying a lot of weight. But I think this is right. It's what distinguishes the scripted adventure approach (see eg the quotes posted by me and moreso @Doug McCrae upthread from systems like V:tM, James Bond, etc) from what Paul Czege describes here in a classic Forge post:

Tim asked if scene transitions were delicate. They aren't. Delicacy is a trait I'd attach to "scene extrapolation," the idea being to make scene initiation seem an outgrowth of prior events, objective, unintentional, non-threatening, but not to the way I've come to frame scenes in games I've run recently.. . . I'm having trouble capturing in dispassionate words what it's like, so I'm going to have to dispense with dispassionate words. By god, when I'm framing scenes, and I'm in the zone, I'm turning a freakin' firehose of adversity and situation on the character. It is not an objective outgrowth of prior events. It's intentional as all get out. We've had a group character session, during which it was my job to find out what the player finds interesting about the character. And I know what I find interesting. I frame the character into the middle of conflicts I think will push and pull in ways that are interesting to me and to the player. I keep NPC personalities somewhat unfixed in my mind, allowing me to retroactively justify their behaviors in support of this. And like Scott's "Point A to Point B" model says, the outcome of the scene is not preconceived.​
The fact that you have a cool idea for your BitD game doesn't make it force; likewise, as @Campbell has pointed out in the past, "no myth" doesn't preclude use of prepared material (whether from a Monster Manual, or some GM write-up, or whatever). It's about _preconceived outcomes_, or the alternative of openness to how the payers engage the scene and letting it unfold out of that interaction and the interplay of narration and mechanics.

I think that Czege's comment about NPCs is also very interesting, and has influenced me a lot. We talk a lot in these threads about "Schroedinger's secret doors" but Czege is pointing out that NPCs can also develop in the same way. (I remember @chaochou causing controversy in one of my Traveller threads by suggesting a similar sort of approach.)



Ovinomancer said:


> The Gygax secret door example appears to be Force in my opinion because it's subverting the player input in a skilled game to reach a GM desired outcome. The idea in skilled play, as I understand it, is that you deploy character resources in a skilled way and you succeed through how you deploy those resources. In that play concept, subverting the skill input of the players is Force. It's not a framing issue, because finding secret doors is not a matter of framing in this mode of play. You've moved something that should be an outcome of skilled play into framing, and that's what's resulting in Force -- the negation of player input in finding the secret door according to the assumptions of play.



I think the Gygax example is both subtle, and also an (unintended, I assume) illustration of a weak point in classic dungeoncrawling D&D.

So first, recall that Gygax says on p 9 of his DMG that it would be contrary to the precepts of the game to allow PCs to escape unnaturally. So we're not talking here about revealing a secret door to allow an escape (or, for similar reasons, to find a treasure or whatever). As Gygax says (DMG p 110), it's about "a secret door that leads to a complex of monsters and treasures that will be especially entertaining."

This can be handled as a mode of skilled play: eg the PCs hear rumours of a hidden part of the complex, or find a map from a previous (NPC) party's expedition, etc. But it doesn't have to be - most obviously, the 1st level party in the first session don't normally need to learn about the dungeon through skilled play. Or discovery of a dungeon can be a result of a random encounter while travelling through the wilderness.

So using a secret door to open up a dungeoneering opportunity isn't, in respect of the _opening up_, a violation of skilled play precepts. But the use of a _secret door _as the device is an adaptation of a device invented for skilled play purposes to a different purposes, driven by the lack of devices for introducing new sites other than action resolution of declarations of movement. Contrast this with, say, MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic, where a secret door in an action scene could be a GM-introduced Scene Distinction or a player-introduced Resource or Asset; but in a Transition Scene could easily just be a piece of GM narration.



FrogReaver said:


> So at a table that didn't consider PC death or a TPK to be a loss condition then would the DM introducing the dragon armies content with only 1 escape route be categorized as GM force?
> 
> If so then why?  If not, then the same action can be both forcing and not forcing - it just depends on the table.  That makes a poor starting point for RPG theory IMO.



If the loss conditions of the game change, then of course the role of other elements and techniques might also change. That's not a surprise, it's exactly what one would expect.

EDIT: I saw this while catching up on the thread, and it belongs in this post:



Manbearcat said:


> I definitely agree that framing (which is the issue with the dog’s Starting Attitude) and introducing consequences of action resolution (re-framing) are the murkiest areas of Force.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



Here we have the _framing as force issue _right in front of us. It's not literally a manipulation or nullifying of player input, because the input hasn't come yet. Its using a mixture of mechanics (including mechanical limitations, which @chaochou talked about upthread) and fiction to pre-empt or sidestep any meaningful player impact on the shared fiction.

In practical, day-to-day RPGing I think this is a big thing.

MORE EDIT:


Manbearcat said:


> I think it would probably be good to discuss how Force applies to framing and and content introduction introduction as a result of action resolution (eg consequences and whether they honor the player’s goal and what was at stake), because it appears that is where there is the most daylight between the participants of the conversation.



_Consequences _are huge. The capacity for nullifying player input, and manipulating towards a fore-ordained goal, is very real. Getting this right is a hugely important GM skill.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 22, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> I used to do stuff like this back in the day routinely.



Not to turn this into an episode of "true confessions" - but thank you for posting this. This is the actual play correlate of the rules text that I, and moreso @Doug McCrae, have been posting.

Or in other words - the topic of this thread isn't just idle speculation or theory craft. We're talking about actual trends in RPGing here.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 22, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> The general consensus of this thread was that waving the wandering monster checks was "unfair".  @pemerton and @Manbearcat were in agreement on that - unless I misunderstood their positions at that time.



You've misunderstood my position. I don't think the wandering monster thing is force - that's controversial, with the controversy turning (I think) on different understandings of how "clocks", skilled play and conceits of dungeon geography and moving PCs fro place to place interact in classic dungoencrawling.

And I don't think it's unfair either. Nor (I think) does @Ovinomancer. I'm not sure about @Manbearcat, but from his posts I don't think _fairness_ (as opposed to, say, _integrity_) is the main value he is deploying.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 22, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> Put another way, should all starving, traumatized dogs be Hostile to careful, non-aggressive human interaction with them?
> 
> Then add the Ranger aspect of this and revise that to "should all starving, traumatized dogs be Hostile to a person whose life has outfitted them with a skillset that particularly equips them to dealing with such situations?"



I don't know the details of the 5e D&D social system - only your accounts of it.

But if a ranger can't befriend an ordinary dog on a 12 (ie beating 50/50 odds) then something has gone wrong. We're talking a _dog_ here, not a hell-hound.



Manbearcat said:


> We're talking about genre fiction here, replete with Rangers who have a preternatural ability to deal with wildlife.  In mundane, real life alone, people skilled with animals deal with traumatized, starving dogs regularly...and they aren't hostile at some kind of overwhelming rate that its impossible to envision one being "Indifferent" (in D&D terms).  I'm not a Ranger, but I've helped rescue a dog exactly like this...talked to her, soothed her with nonthreatening posture and waited patiently until she trusted me...and fed her right out of my hand.  My guess is, if you Youtube this, its not the most uncommon thing in the world.



Clearly you're a chosen of Ehlonna! (Or Melora, for those who prefer 4e to GH).

Other than your newly-revealed animal-handling abilities, nothing here is surprising or shocking. Only in crappy "never give the PCs an even break" D&D is using food to befriend a feral dog going to be a task out of reach of an animal handling-trained ranger.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 22, 2020)

pemerton said:


> I don't want to go too far down this rabbithole - but if player input hasn't occurred yet then it can't be _nullified_. Nor can it be _modified_. It can be _instigated_.




And if the player input has already occurred then how can that input be nullified or modified other than by fudging checks?



> If the loss conditions of the game change, then of course the role of other elements and techniques might also change. That's not a surprise, it's exactly what one would expect.




I find it interesting and very important to note that you are agreeing that whether an act is forcing or is not depends on a tables loss conditions. 

Consider, is it possible that loss conditions are subjective?  It seems to me that they must be because what one player in a particular game counts as a loss may not be what another counts as one in that very same game.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 22, 2020)

pemerton said:


> Other than your newly-revealed animal-handling abilities, nothing here is surprising or shocking. Only in crappy "never give the PCs an even break" D&D is using food to befriend a feral dog going to be a task out of reach of an animal handling-trained ranger.




That seems to be assuming that checks should tell whether you succeed or fail and the details of how you attempted to do whatever you were trying are not important.  There's another playstyle where the details of how you are trying to do something really matter when it comes to setting the DC.

I find it to be a perfectly reasonable determination by the DM that approaching a starving and traumatized dog would cause it to take a defensive posture.  But that's assuming a playtyle like the 2nd that I described.  If you are playing by the first then you take into account it's a wilderness guy trained in animal handling and pretty much whatever he tries and however he tries to do it to do outside of attacking the dog he is going to get to roll animal handling with a moderate but not hard dc for success.

Alot of the games you describe that you like seem to have more of the first type of playstyle.  So maybe that's some of the disconnect.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 22, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> Torchbearer just flat solved all of these problems through well-integrated systemization and extremely clear GMing.  D&D (whether its Moldvay Basic, AD&D, or 5e) could just reverse engineer them and integrate them into their system architecture.



I've got no doubt Torchbearer solves them, because Luke Crane is a brilliant designer.

But reverse-engineering will be tricky. Look at the agony in 5e threads over how to manage 6 to 8 encounter balance in the context of recovery clocks measured by ingame time; the accusations of "contrivance" or "dissociated" against 13th Age's recovery/"campaign loss" system; etc.

Gygax's D&D treats it as pretty much a given that all time and geography are resolved via movement rates applied on maps, with no action scene/transition scene contrast. And D&D has been stuck with this inheritance except for that brief interlude we all know about but don't speak about!


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 22, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> I think we all have a pretty good (and consensus) feeling on how Force applies to action resolution.
> 
> I think it would probably be good to discuss how Force applies to framing *and and* content *introduction introduction* as a result of action resolution (eg consequences and whether they honor the player’s goal and what was at stake), because it appears that is where there is the most daylight between the participants of the conversation.




Totally unrelated to the conversation.

No one ever comments about how I do this.  I go back and read my posts later and I'm seeing this more and more anymore.  Its startling.  I think I'm experiencing the onset of CTE (I've had probably 30 legitimate concussions in my life, 2 with loss of consciousness before age 7).  I'm right at the age (early 40s).  My memory is struggling when once my memory was visceral and absolutely freakish in terms of recall.  My ability to make new memories is struggling.  I've gotten progressively more stupid in the last 4 years (struggling with comprehension and to formulate thoughts in ways that would have never been a problem in the past).

If anyone has any experience with the above (brain tick where you just add the same word multiple times at random), hit me up with a PM.  I'd love to hear about it.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 22, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> And if the player input has already occurred then how can that input be nullified or modified other than by fudging checks?



By disregarding it, adding to it in ways that don't honour it, ignoring it's impact on a DC (in systems that have them), etc.

A classic example I have frequently seen advocated in published adventures: if the PCs kill the leader of a gang, a second-in-command takes over so the plot of the module rolls on unabated.



FrogReaver said:


> what one player in a particular game counts as a loss may not be what another counts as one in that very same game.



That seems likely to be a cause of dysfunctional play. For instance, if the game is fairly typical D&D and one player thinks a TPK is a loss while another doesn't, I don't see how friction will be avoided for very long.



FrogReaver said:


> I find it to be a perfectly reasonable determination by the DM that approaching a starving and traumatized dog would cause it to take a defensive posture.  But that's assuming a playtyle like the 2nd that I described.  If you are playing by the first then you take into account it's a wilderness guy trained in animal handling and pretty much whatever he tries and however he tries to do it to do outside of attacking the dog he is going to get to roll animal handling with a moderate but not hard dc for success.



And so does the player of the ranger with training in Animal Handling need to make a check so the GM will tell him/her what the best way is to befriend an upset dog? Or is that meant to be built into the skill system already - so that a successful Animal Handling check includes having reached out to it in the right way?

Also, is starting attitude meant to be a baseline, or is it meant to very radically in response? Eg if a NPC is _indifferent/neutral_ and then a player narrates his/her PC's greeting and it's rougher/more colloquial than the NPC would prefer, is that grounds to change the outlook to _hostile_? Or should it impose a slight penalty? Or neither - perhaps being super-genteel should confer a bonus!

Any system that leaves a trained ranger with only a 10% or 20% chance to connect with a feral dog; or that might allow a silver-tongued bard only a 10% or 20% chance to get the time of day from a frightened waif;  has, in my view, obviously failed. And in my experience this sort of thing - resulting from some of the factors I've mentioned in this post - is a common manifestation of poor GMing that, in fantasy gaming, pushes players towards spells over ordinary actions as solutions, subverts genre and generally causes frustration.


----------



## Sadras (Feb 22, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> Alternatively, another player is an escaped thrall of mindflayers, but has no memory of before thralldom.  I have a rule in this campaign that PCs don't die unless the player says so, but choosing this option means I get creative license to be mean.  This PC elected to not die, and so I introduced that when he came to, he recalled that he had volunteered for thralldom, but diesn't remember why.  I had that license because he invoked the death rule and I chose that because I knew it would torture the player far worse than PC death eould have.
> 
> I'd say the latter was Force, even thoigh I had loose permission, but I'd say that oermission was to engage in Force, not make it not Force.




I very much like this house-rule but do you feel it is correct to call your example Force. For instance the player invoked it after a failure (combat failure in this instance), which is not very different than using mechanics and rolling poorly. If one rolled poorly using a mechanics system to allow a GM to provide PC background input would you still say it results in Force?


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 22, 2020)

pemerton said:


> I don't want to go too far down this rabbithole - but if player input hasn't occurred yet then it can't be _nullified_. Nor can it be _modified_. It can be _instigated_.



Before it occurs it can also be _directed_, either partially or completely, by both the specific content introduced by the GM and the (perhaps metagame) manner in which this is done; and that's where part of the issue lies.



> This is what I've been focusing on ... around the DL dragon armies case - there are some different analyses going on, and probably more posts I haven't read yet, but my take is that this is not a modification or nullification of player input but nevertheless is force because it guides/manipulates towards an outcome.



I've never run DL-1 but a similar module-mandated use of Force might be the transition in the Slavers series from A-3 to A-4: the party have to be captured come what may. (great series but that one bit of it that never felt right somehow)


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 22, 2020)

pemerton said:


> That seems likely to be a cause of dysfunctional play. For instance, if the game is fairly typical D&D and one player thinks a TPK is a loss while another doesn't, I don't see how friction will be avoided for very long.



We just deal with it.

We all, I think, would generally see a TPK as a loss*; but beneath that some see significant wealth loss or item destruction as far more of a "loss condition" than others, while others see level drain as perhaps the greatest "loss condition" and still others see PC death as being that.

All it means is that I have to make sure all three happen on a regular basis, so nobody feels left out. 

* - in theory; I've only ever had one and - unrelated - none of the players involved are still active in our games.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 22, 2020)

@Ovinomancer

Here is a good example I just thought of where I feel comfortable calling it Force when a GM creates metaplot/backstory that subordinates a player’s authority over their thematic conception of their PC/interests.

4e has 3 ways of earning xp:


Passing or failing Skill Challenges (a story loss/setback or a story win...it doesn't matter).
Defeating Monsters
Quests

Now as of DMG2 (came out 9 months after release), these Quests are either authored entirely by a player or co-authored with the GM.

Their functionality is basically the exact same as Bonds and Alignment in Dungeon World.   You make a statement about your PC and pursue it to resolution.  Say you're a Sohei.  You might have the following Quest:

"The Daimyo has the blood of my priesthood on his hands, even though he used surrogates to do the killing.  They will be avenged when my blade finds his neck."

The essential system components/game agenda here are/is:

1)  Explicitly staking out and then aggressively advocating for your thematic portfolio is fundamental to the play of 4e D&D.  And its fundamentally the player's purview.

2)  A GM has narration rights of situation-framing and story setback loss/complication.  But there are limits. Those limits are (a) that initial situation-framing must honor (1) above along with what has come before it in the on-screen fiction and (b) the thematically-challenging material they place in front of the player must (c) be onscreen such that the player is aware of it and the stakes involved and (d) must only be the fallout of a story loss (A Skill Challenge failure or a Combat where the objective was failed).

So, back to the Sohei and the Daimyo.  In this case, if the GM used his unique access to the offscreen/backstory to do something like (a) anticlimactically kill the Daimyo offscreen or (b) unilaterally (and retroactively) change the nature of the Daimyo's role so that he doesn't have blood on his hands, *and either of these aren't an outgrowth of 2b>c>d above*, that would have to be "Force by way of offscreen backstory/metaplot reframing of a PC's thematic portfolio (which is the player's input)."



Hopefully it makes sense why my take is that @Sadras 's situation in 5e is different than something like Quests and 4e.  Now @Sadras 's table social contract or hack the above into his 5e game...but its not there at an elemental level, so I can only go by 5e's GMing role, the game's play priorities and authority distribution, and the general system/PC build stuff.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 22, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> back to the Sohei and the Daimyo.  In this case, if the GM used his unique access to the offscreen/backstory to do something like (a) anticlimactically kill the Daimyo offscreen or (b) unilaterally (and retroactively) change the nature of the Daimyo's role so that he doesn't have blood on his hands, *and either of these aren't an outgrowth of 2b>c>d above*, that would have to be "Force by way of offscreen backstory/metaplot reframing of a PC's thematic portfolio (which is the player's input)."



This sort of thing is hardcore RPGing suckitude.

I think you're right that it's also force.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 23, 2020)

pemerton said:


> This sort of thing is hardcore RPGing suckitude.
> 
> I think you're right that it's also force.




Yeah, not great.

The thing is, I'm sure a fair amount of time its not struggle of player:GM wills or the GM douchebaggery.  I'm sure a fair amount of the time its just that the GM hasn't recognized what they've actually done.

I mean, we have "professional storytellers" in directors/screen-writers who completely destroy the "thematic winnings" (and therefore legacy) of beloved franchise characters (my first acquaintance with this was how Aliens 3 wrecked the hard-fought legacy of Ripley, my favorite character of all time, from Aliens 2...it made a hell of an impact that I'll never forget)!  Its not much of a stretch for hard-working, sincere (but amateur, as we are all) GMs to screw things up in the same vein!

GMs just need to work to maintain vigilance against this and be ever-thoughtful.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 23, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> I'm sure a fair amount of time its not struggle of player:GM wills or the GM douchebaggery.  I'm sure a fair amount of the time its just that the GM hasn't recognized what they've actually done.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> GMs just need to work to maintain vigilance against this and be ever-thoughtful.



Agreed it's frequently not malice. But this is why I've been saying upthread that establishing _framing_ and _consequences _are two fundamental GM skills. And with your particular example it also relates to the roll of _secret backstory_ in action resolution - another fundamental matter.

I agree vigilance is important. So is awareness of a good range of techniques and also support for understanding and developing, or sometimes thwarting, fictional trajectories. What sorts of things can help with this? AW's list of GM moves is a pretty good start!


----------



## Numidius (Feb 23, 2020)

pemerton said:


> And with your particular example it also relates to the roll of _secret backstory_ in action resolution - another fundamental matter.




What do you exactly mean by that?


----------



## Numidius (Feb 23, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> Before it occurs it can also be _directed_, either partially or completely, by both the specific content introduced by the GM and the (perhaps metagame) manner in which this is done; and that's where part of the issue lies.




Yes, a big part, in my experience. Metagame, as in OOC at the table (right?), I've seen the biggest issues: from the very session zero, not allowing backgrounds, for instance, or completely negating them in session one; to outright blocking declarations, also OOC; to putting forth more and more obstacles IC to prevent a conclusion to a scene and directing the story. 

Negating outcomes once rolled is something I don't see at tables, because that would be really beyond acceptance of Players.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 23, 2020)

Numidius said:


> Yes, a big part, in my experience. Metagame, as in OOC at the table (right?), I've seen the biggest issues: from the very session zero, not allowing backgrounds, for instance, or completely negating them in session one; to outright blocking declarations, also OOC; to putting forth more and more obstacles IC to prevent a conclusion to a scene and directing the story.



While all valid, those aren't what I was getting at. 

When I talk of _directing_ player input before it happens, I'm referring to situations where a DM wants to elicit specific input and thus presents or narrates things in such a way as to prompt the desired response.

An example just a bit over the top to make my point: a DM who wants the party to go left at the next junction narrates reaching that junction as: "You reach a 4-way junction in the passage.  Ahead and to the right >_shrug_< there's nothing. And >_keen glance at each player_< there's nothing to the LEFT either."

Now of course the players could still decide to go ahead, or right, or turn around and leave; but given the DM's narration and meta-presentation, chances are high they'll go left if only to see what he's on about.



> Negating outcomes once rolled is something I don't see at tables, because that would be really beyond acceptance of Players.



Player-side rolls, yes.  Negating DM-side rolls is also Force, and drags in the whole to-fudge-or-not-to-fudge debate.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 23, 2020)

Numidius said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



By _secret backstory _I mean elements of the fiction that are known only to the GM - and so in at least that sense are not part of a _shared _fiction - but that nevertheless are used by the GM to inform the outcomes of action resolution.

Like all these things there can be complex cases and perhaps sometimes boundaries are blurred. But in @Manbearcat's example we see it at work: the GM decides, "offscreen" ie unilaterally and secretly from the players, that the daimyo is dead. Now action declarations by the player in the general direction of "I kill the daimyo" or "I take steps to bring down the daimyo" all fizzle, because the daimyo is no longer around.

I think what I've just described needs to be kept distinct from GM preparation of material to use in framing (eg something like AW _fronts)._ Some of what can look like action declaration is, in my view, more of a device to press the GM to frame some more - eg _reading a charged situation_ in AW, if it succeeds, requires the GM to add some more detail to the current scene and share it with the player who succeeded. And that might draw upon prep.

(Not all perception-type checks are like this: eg in BW wises are just as often, or even more often, used by a player to establish new elements of the fiction.)

** ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *     

I GMed a session of Classic Traveller today, continuing the Aliens meets Annic Nova scenario. As originally presented (ie in the published module Annic Nova), there is not a great deal more to this scenario than the players moving around the abandoned vessel learning backstory from the GM by performing variouis sorts of "moves" (some of which require checks, some of which are simply gated behind skill levels, and some of which have to be puzzled out by the players).

I call this sort of play _learning what it is in the GM's notes_., For it to be interesting, I think the notes have to be pretty damn clever and the atmosphere etc well presented also. I've encountered this as a player in CoC one-shots, I don't think the Annic Nova scenario, as published, gets over the line.

So I've adapted it in a couple of ways. There is an external source of pressure, namely, an Imperial Navy cutter investigating the vessel and the PCs' interest in it. That came into play today and was handled in the standard way we resolve social encounters ie a roll on the reaction table, with a +1 DM because the PC in question was a noble like the naval officer he was dealing with, and was being relatively charming in his blather. The modified result was a 12, ie genuine friendship, and so the officer has come on board the PC's ship but has accepted their explanation that things on the abandoned ship (the Annic Nova) aren't yet suitable for inspection by the Navy. No secret backstory was at work here (I'd prepped the NPCs, but it wasn't _secret backstory _eg the officer announced herself by her title - _Lady Commander Askol - _and my explanation of the circumstances of the reaction check, including the +1 DM, was all out in the open) .

There's also an internal source of pressure, namely, aliens (or rather Aliens) on board the abandoned vessel. Because of the way Traveller works - eg pretty old-school resolution for combat, based on position on a map or more abstract bands (but in this case we're using floor plans from the module) - there is a lot of scope for secret backstory to affect things. In the session today I handled that by using the surprise mechanics together with the encounter distance mechanics to determine who got the drop on whom, in circumstances where - to use AW terminology - the _unwelcome truth_ of the aliens on board had already been well and truly revealed.

For other aspects of framing and so establishing possible action declarations, there were some INT checks, and a check where a bonus from EDU got the relevant PC over the line. None of this was at the AW-level of elegant narrative pressure, but I was using it to try and have the backstory come out and hence the framing established in ways that followed the established fiction (including the fiction of the relevant PCs) and tried to make the session about _more _than just learning what's in the GM's notes while not using the content of those notes as a secret determiner of action resolution outcomes.

That's a bit rambly but I hope makes some sense and helps illustrate some of the more abstract points in the first half of the post.


----------



## Numidius (Feb 23, 2020)

Very clear. Got it.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 23, 2020)

@Lanefan

That is a good point.  That is actually a part of Force in GMing that we haven't touched on.

A significant aspect of the skill of GMing a dungeon crawl or a heist is playing an extremely well-finessed game of "Blind-Man's Bluff Meets Pictionary".


Everyone has a card (the same card), except instead of it being on their forehead and facing the group, its face-down.
You know what is on the card.
You have to draw a picture that provokes questions and foreshadows what is on that card without bluntly or clumsily revealing the answers doing so.

There is a very fine line between too much and too little provocation and foreshadowing...and you have to deftly straddle it.  You go beyond that line...its Force (because you're, even if only accidentally or clumsily, subordinating the integrity of a player's strategic and tactical decision-making).


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 23, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> @Lanefan
> 
> That is a good point.  That is actually a part of Force in GMing that we haven't touched on.
> 
> ...



For me it comes back to the GM being as neutral as possible in his/her descriptions and narrations, while still getting in all the required information to convey what the PCs see/hear/smell/etc.

Doing this halfway well first requires recognizing those times when one isn't being perhaps as neutral as one thinks.  (and also then not overcorrecting, which is a trap I fell into for a while in the past)

A GM often needs a good poker face.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 24, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> For me it comes back to the GM being as neutral as possible in his/her descriptions and narrations, while still getting in all the required information to convey what the PCs see/hear/smell/etc.
> 
> Doing this halfway well first requires recognizing those times when one isn't being perhaps as neutral as one thinks.  (and also then not overcorrecting, which is a trap I fell into for a while in the past)
> 
> A GM often needs a good poker face.



Meh, players quite often miss the stuff you yell, so I don't bother at all with a poker face.  I make sure information it out there because, if I'm running 5e for instance, I do not want to sit there while the players dither and discussion and question, I want to play D&D.  So, I don't bother.  I make sure that missing the canvas results in a head slap moment because it's been yelled at the top of my lungs (metaphorically) throughout and if it still bites the players on the arse, they immediately realize that's on them, not me for playing peek-a-boo with information.  

And, they slap themselves on the head all. the. time.  I swear, I could hand them my notes and it wouldn't really change how many shenanigans they end up in.  It's way more fun having nothing up my sleeve, or, if I do, telling them it's dove, it's a dove, it's a dove, hey, idiots, it's a dove because they'll still guess rabbit and be surprised when it is, in fact, a dove.

All of the 'surprise' of my games comes from putting out easy to find canvases and then following what they players paint.  I have no idea where something's going to go, most of the time, so the next canvas I set out is based entirely on how they painted the last one.  Or didn't paint it, but flung poo.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 24, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> Meh, players quite often miss the stuff you yell, so I don't bother at all with a poker face.



What I find fascinating sometimes is how they'll miss what you yell but pick up what you whisper and run away with it. 



> I make sure information it out there because, if I'm running 5e for instance, I do not want to sit there while the players dither and discussion and question, I want to play D&D.



To each their own; for me that "dither and discussion and question" phase is part of playing, and if it goes on too long I know at least one of 'em will get bored and send the balloon up somehow.



> And, they slap themselves on the head all. the. time.  I swear, I could hand them my notes and it wouldn't really change how many shenanigans they end up in.  It's way more fun having nothing up my sleeve, or, if I do, telling them it's dove, it's a dove, it's a dove, hey, idiots, it's a dove because they'll still guess rabbit and be surprised when it is, in fact, a dove.



Mine would catch on that it's a dove, no problem there. 

Then they'd ask me how much they could sell it for when they get back to town.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Mar 13, 2020)

Role-Playing Mastery (1987) Gary Gygax.

Page 49:

There are times when the GM will bend or break the rules of the game system in order to allow his players to maintain their characters. Just as he sometimes metes out punishment for infractions, the GM at other times intervenes benevolently, spreading his aegis over the PCs to save them from probabilities gone awry. To put it bluntly, when play is at a low ebb, or it is quite likely that the players’ characters are about to suffer undue loss or extinction, the GM cheats and decrees otherwise. Opponents miss their blows, PCs manage to strike their foes, and various sorts of miracles occur. This is wrong only when it is done too liberally or when it is unwarranted. If the PC party is in danger of extermination through no direct fault of its own and because a string of unlikely occurrences have all somehow come to pass, then this is the time for the GM to step in and set things back on the right track, or at least keep them from getting any worse.​​Page 55:
​In specific cases in which the PCs are in jeopardy because the rules of the game have worked against them through a rare succession of unlikely and adverse occurrences, the GM is within his rights to override the provisions of the rules for the sake of guaranteeing (for the moment, at least) the continued survival and viability of the player characters.​
Gygax goes further here than he does in the 1e DMG. He's now prepared to overrule the dice, not just for wandering monsters and secret door detection, but also in combat. The use of the phrase "set things back on the right track" might make his play style seem story-oriented, but I think the following excerpts show it's still challenge-oriented, as it is in 1e AD&D.

Page 48:

The dedicated GM is not only an impartial judge of events, but at the same time he is an active force championing the cause of both the preservation of PCs not bent on self-destruction and the continued satisfaction of players who do not seek to see the campaign ruined. Conversely, he has no ethical or moral obligation to keep a PC alive and viable if that character’s player insists on leaping into the jaws of adversity - and he owes it to himself and the others in the group to discipline or dismiss a player who has a selfish and treacherous attitude toward the campaign.​​Page 50-51:
​You respond to the players’ needs by revising and expanding the campaign milieu. First they may demand more intense and detailed combat frequently. Then they might find more esoteric approaches to unusual problems more interesting. You address these preferences as soon as you become aware of the trend… difficulty arises when players try to revise the game system, violate the spirit, or make the campaign into a playground - as opposed to a testing ground - for their game personas.​


----------



## Manbearcat (Mar 13, 2020)

Doug McCrae said:


> Role-Playing Mastery (1987) Gary Gygax.
> 
> Page 49:
> 
> ...




Thanks for finding this and posting it Doug.

My thoughts:

1)  People naturally change over the course of their lives.  As long as your somewhat intellectually honest and humble, the corrective process of life should at least have you reflecting upon, if not revising, ideas you stood by in the past.  

2)  It seems to me what we're seeing here is a bit of a moving along a continuum from 1e onward.  And honestly, I think its a product of (a) Gygax realizing the problem with the resolution mechanics of AD&D and (b) not seeing a path forward toward revisions or an outright new iteration that would yield a more functional, challenge-based-gaming-friendly ruleset.

This progressive move (in the span of 10 years?) toward "use bubble-gum and paper clips during play (meaning Force) to patch over the suspect parts (action resolution mechanics interactions) of the ruleset which lead to outcomes that are antithetical to authentic challenge-based-gaming priorities (eg "earned" results aren't en emergent property of merely playing the game)" is (IMO) completely incompatible with both (a) challenge-based gaming priorities in the first place and (b) design curiosity and rigor.

It seems so weird for Gygax (the godfather of challenge-based TTRPGing) to put out an ethos that is incompatible with (a) and (b).

The answer is simple:

1)  Go back to the design drawing board and revise/iterate upon the problems of the ruleset that are leading to the 1st order or 2nd order undesirable effects.

2)  Have an adult conversation with your players when these moments of play strike and decide, collectively, how you want to revise the gamestate to a prior state (before the wonky ruleset screwed up the emergence of "earned" outcomes from challenge-based-priorities.

I wonder how Gygax would feel about a game like Blades (and its Forged in the Dark derivatives) and Torchbearer.  They're both so profoundly beyond his AD&D in terms of "earned" outcomes and interesting, challenging decision-points from a challenge-based-priority perspective.  Given my contention of (2b) above, I'm left wondering if he would gawk or if he would be incredulous.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Mar 13, 2020)

Honestly, i think Gygax would have liked it. It might not be his baby, and he might have done some old man kvetching, but theres no denying the success of an alternate approach. Torch Bearer and maybe DW rather than Blades are tapping the heartroot of D&D even if they use different mechanics.


----------



## Manbearcat (Mar 13, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> Honestly, i think Gygax would have liked it. It might not be his baby, and he might have done some old man kvetching, but theres no denying the success of an alternate approach. Torch Bearer and maybe DW rather than Blades are tapping the heartroot of D&D even if they use different mechanics.




I'd hope he would.  All of those games are homage to him.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Mar 13, 2020)

I think he’d be happy with the variety of games and gaming methods of today. The fact that there’s still D&D of all kinds would help....if PbtA and FitD games had supplanted D&D rather than just being an alternative to it, then he might have felt differently!


----------



## pemerton (Mar 13, 2020)

Doug McCrae said:


> Gygax goes further here than he does in the 1e DMG. He's now prepared to overrule the dice, not just for wandering monsters and secret door detection, but also in combat.



I noticed that too. @Manbearcat has refelcted on some of the bigger-picture issues this raises. My comment will be more parochial: I think he's made a mistake.

For AD&D, there is no need for the PCs to escape "unnaturally" or anything like that. He's already provided the solution in the DMG - have the reduction of a PC to zero hp count as something other than death. (I've myself applied this "solution" to a TPK in 4e.)



Doug McCrae said:


> The use of the phrase "set things back on the right track" might make his play style seem story-oriented, but I think the following excerpts show it's still challenge-oriented, as it is in 1e AD&D.



But maybe he's no longer assuming that _the players choose the encounters_ (via planning, evasion from wandering monsters, etc). Because his advice makes more sense in a post-Gygaxian context of _the GM _choosing the encounters (whether as part of an "adventure path" or as en expression of a "living, breathing world"), which means that the odds can go freakishly against the players through no fault of their own.

In the sort of dungeon-crawling set out in AD&D, though, if the players choose to take on the troll on the 4th level that's on them! And if one or more of them gets knocked unconscious and taken prisoner, then it's time for other PCs in the stable to mount a rescue (or maybe ransom) expedition.

But by 1987 Gygax must have been aware that that had become (and perhaps always was, once the game got out into the wild) a minority approach to play.


----------



## Sadras (Mar 13, 2020)

pemerton said:


> For AD&D, there is no need for the PCs to escape "unnaturally" or anything like that. He's already provided the solution in the DMG - have the reduction of a PC to zero hp count as something other than death. (I've myself applied this "solution" to a TPK in 4e.)




In our last 5e session the PCs failed on a relatively difficult skill challenge (6 successes before 3 failures) which saw them unable to outrun an Astral Dreadnaught via their stolen Githyanki skiff. The result of which would have undoubtedly been a TPK, however given that

They are still relatively inexperienced in player input for skill challenges which was partly a reason for their overall failure (I provided them plenty examples post session to _open up_ their minds to possibilities for future SC I may introduce); and that
The PCs were 2 levels under the required level for the module.
I decided that the players and I will co-narrate the loss with the in-game fiction being they were swallowed and transported to the AD's Demiplane Donjon from which they can escape given a smartly planned _Word of Recall _(this latter was actually done)_._

I'm imagining the playout of the loss narration will require the PCs to make decisions with those character decisions directly influencing the loss conditions which make sense within the fiction.
With 5e I can draw losses from (a) temporary madness; (b) additional flaws; (c) destruction of precious equipment; (d) loss/destruction of magical items; (e) loss of other valuable resource; (f) loss/major injury to henchman; and (g) ability loss

EDIT: A TPK on a side quest would not have served the campaign and would have been unsatifying to the table.


----------



## Manbearcat (Mar 13, 2020)

@Sadras 

That's good stuff, but what you're describing is different in few ways from the move that Gygax has made from his DMG to this 1987 statement.

1)  What you're depicting in your session above is typical Story Now priorities.  Also, I don't see Force in your example above.  I just see Fail Forward technique being deployed (which is what you should be doing if you're cribbing 4e Skill Challenges or Mouse Guard conflict resolution or anything like that).  Looks like coherent GMing for Story Now from what I can divine of your excerpt.

2)  Gygax is basically the forefather of Challenge-Based gaming priorities.  What I'm seeing him advocate above is a either an unconscious move off of Challenge-Based gaming priorities or a conscious one and, regardless, an acceptance of the limitations of his ruleset (and with that acceptance, a move off of design curiosity and rigor).  Its just very strange to see him basically advocating Force (which subordinates Challenge-Based priorities to another priority or subset of priorities).  But, again, it could very well be that he got swept up in that time and was consciously moving off of Challenge-Based gaming priorities and neutral refereeing to the priorities and the Force-intensive GMing that was being advocated for at that time.  That happens with people as time accrues.  They want different things (and then they often go back to their old ways if they live long enough/stay with it long enough to go through another cycle of reflection and taste change).


----------



## Sadras (Mar 13, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> 1)  What you're depicting in your session above is typical Story Now priorities.  Also, I don't see Force in your example above.  I just see Fail Forward technique being deployed (which is what you should be doing if you're cribbing 4e Skill Challenges or Mouse Guard conflict resolution or anything like that).  Looks like coherent GMing for Story Now from what I can divine of your excerpt.




Well it is not something I cribbed from my 4e books so much as having cribbed this technique from online conversations with yourself, Pemerton and a few others when I was trying to understand how to effectively deploy a SC. My games are very much not Story Now as I'm running sandbox APs but I do like to inject these techniques* into my game where I can and am comfortable to. I also feel the majority of my players enjoy this _player input _because
(1) It is novel/new given our table's style of play; and
(2) It gets their creative juices flowing (2 of the 4 have GM'ed before and one of which is a much better GM than me - he's biggest flaw being not runnng the campaign all the way through).

*Expanding/developing backgrounds is another area I encourage as I do attempt to weave it into our main storyline. And just recently the idea was given by Hussar to let the players create NPCs that the PCs might have interacted with. I took this and allowed them to introduce 5 NPCs with positive, negative or neutral reactions that will likely be used within our story.



> 2)  Gygax is basically the forefather of Challenge-Based gaming priorities.  What I'm seeing him advocate above is a either an unconscious move off of Challenge-Based gaming priorities or a conscious one and, regardless, an acceptance of the limitations of his ruleset (and with that acceptance, a move off of design curiosity and rigor).  Its just very strange to see him basically advocating Force (which subordinates Challenge-Based priorities to another priority or subset of priorities).  But, again, it could very well be that he got swept up in that time and was consciously moving off of Challenge-Based gaming priorities and neutral refereeing to the priorities and the Force-intensive GMing that was being advocated for at that time.  That happens with people as time accrues.  They want different things (and then they often go back to their old ways if they live long enough/stay with it long enough to go through another cycle of reflection and taste change).




This all makes sense. I agree.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 13, 2020)

@Sadras - your exchange with @Manbearcat seems to have covered most of it, but I'll offer my own take.

In his DMG, Gygax allows that zero hp suffered by a well-played PC (and hence resulting not from poor play but from bad luck) might be "commuted" to some lesser consequence (eg maiming or unconsciousness) that still recognises what it is that the monster has done (ie defeated the PC in cmbat). As I think I already posted in this thread, I don't find that an objectionable approach, not even in the challenge-based game that Gygax favours.

In your example the conflict was an evasion skill challenge. The PCs lost, and - it seems - perhaps due to less-than-optimal play, but not necessarily _bad_ play given their knowledge and experience. The consequence for failure impicit in the situation was being caught by the Astral Dreadnought - and instead of running that as a combat you've just hard-framed them into the demiplane instead (in the fiction, they've been swallowed).

That _might_ count as force if you have a player who really wanted to fight the dreadnought! But as you describe it, it seems like the players are quite happy with your framing and don't want to contest the premise that their PCs got swallowed by declaring contrary actions.

And I don't even think it's inimical to challenge-oriented play _provided that _the players (and their PCs) suffoer some sort of meaningful loss that correlates with their defeat. (It would need to be more severe than what they would have had to pay to escape, or else escaping would be no more a win than being swallowed. This would be one way of distinguishing challenge-based play from story-now-type play in this context.)


----------



## Doug McCrae (Mar 14, 2020)

pemerton said:


> But maybe he's no longer assuming that _the players choose the encounters_ (via planning, evasion from wandering monsters, etc). Because his advice makes more sense in a post-Gygaxian context of _the GM _choosing the encounters (whether as part of an "adventure path" or as en expression of a "living, breathing world"), which means that the odds can go freakishly against the players through no fault of their own.
> 
> In the sort of dungeon-crawling set out in AD&D, though, if the players choose to take on the troll on the 4th level that's on them! And if one or more of them gets knocked unconscious and taken prisoner, then it's time for other PCs in the stable to mount a rescue (or maybe ransom) expedition.
> 
> But by 1987 Gygax must have been aware that that had become (and perhaps always was, once the game got out into the wild) a minority approach to play.



I think the type of play advocated in Role-Playing Mastery is similar to that advocated in the 1e PHB in the section headed Successful Adventures (pgs 107-109). Players have an objective and they try to achieve it without getting sidetracked. But there’s an important difference – in Role-Playing Mastery the objective is chosen by the GM rather than the players. The reason for this is there has been a shift away from mega-dungeons and towards a more familiar (at least to us) scenario or adventure setup where the players are given a mission at the start of play. There is an adventure path in the sense of a defined set of victory conditions, and possibly quite a number of actions the players will have to undertake to achieve that victory, but because this is strongly challenge-oriented play the GM is actively trying to get the players to depart from that path and thus fail the mission.

*Setting Objectives*

1e PHB page 107:

First get in touch with all those who will be included in the adventure, or if all are not available, at least talk to the better players so that you will be able to set an objective for the adventure. Whether the purpose is so simple as to discover a flight of stairs to the next lowest unexplored level or so difficult as to find and destroy an altar to an alien god, some firm objective should be established and then adhered to as strongly as possible.​
Role-Playing Mastery:

Page 43:

The game tells what the nature of challenges within its scope will be, but there is usually no direct information as to the specific objective of each play session. The GM who develops the campaign milieu will devise these objectives singularly or in conjunction with material supplied for this purpose by the publisher of the rules system. What sorts of challenges are appropriate? How stiff should the opposition be? Generally, these are questions the GM will answer by examining the game materials, assessing the prowess of the PCs and their players, and then selecting and combining elements of the game rules and the milieu so that the strength of the opposition is tailored to the capabilities of those who will contest against it.​
Page 44-45:

The first session begins. Players are introduced to the game and its concepts. Some goal, objective, or end is conveyed…​​The task of creating the game world is tremendous... Let’s follow an example to see just how demanding the exercise is.​​The genre of the game is action-adventure in the early part of the twentieth century - let’s assume from 1900 through about 1935 or so. Our GM decides that the campaign setting will begin in San Francisco. The quest problem will be to discover the cause of a series of murders and mysterious disappearances in that city.​
The following advice is from Chapter 7, Tactical Mastery, which is directed towards players.

Page 122-123:

Know the mission. Based on the information you are given in the background and setting of a scenario, define exactly what you are going to try to do. Sometimes the mission will be spelled out in no uncertain terms; if it is not, you should be able to deduce it logically from the information provided. Keep the mission in mind at all times, so that each activity you engage in assists in the overall aim.​​Know the goal. The mission should have a set goal. When that goal is successfully achieved or arrived at, the mission is complete and the adventure should conclude at that point.​
*Avoiding Unnecessary Encounters*

1e PHB page 109:

_Avoid unnecessary encounters_. This advice usually means the difference between success and failure when it is followed intelligently. Your party has an objective, and wandering monsters are something which stand between them and it. The easiest way to overcome such difficulties is to avoid the interposing or trailing creature if at all possible. Wandering monsters typically weaken the party through use of equipment and spells against them, and they also weaken the group by inflicting damage. Very few are going to be helpful; fewer still will have anything of any value to the party. Run first and ask questions later. In the same vein, shun encounters with creatures found to be dwelling permanently in the dungeon (as far as you can tell, that is) unless such creatures are part of the set objective or the monster stands between the group and the goal it has set out to gain. _Do not be sidetracked_. A good referee will have many ways to distract an expedition, many things to draw attention, but ignore them if at all possible.​
Role-Playing Mastery:

Page 125:

Evade and avoid. Whenever possible, conserve time and other resources by avoiding unnecessary confrontation. Slip away without fighting, negotiate, or use trickery. The goal of the mission is paramount, and only those activities that will lend probable success to attaining that goal should be undertaken.​
Page 131:

The GM’s information… will be keyed to describe what facts will be revealed if PCs interact with a certain location or item within the scenario area at a certain time… PCs must either follow the clues or else move outside the scope of the scenario...​​The master GM... will deliberately include information not found in the scenario as originally presented in published form. A bit of this information may actually be helpful, but the rest is for another purpose altogether. The GM will add it specifically to mislead the players, so that they will not follow any of the prescribed routes and go wandering off into a limbo that is unrelated to the adventure.​


----------



## pemerton (Mar 14, 2020)

Doug McCrae said:


> I think the type of play advocated in Role-Playing Mastery is similar to that advocated in the 1e PHB in the section headed Successful Adventures (pgs 107-109). Players have an objective and they try to achieve it without getting sidetracked. But there’s an important difference – in Role-Playing Mastery the objective is chosen by the GM rather than the players. The reason for this is there has been a shift away from mega-dungeons and towards a more familiar (at least to us) scenario or adventure setup where the players are given a mission at the start of play. There is an adventure path in the sense of a defined set of victory conditions, and possibly quite a number of actions the players will have to undertake to achieve that victory, but because this is strongly challenge-oriented play the GM is actively trying to get the players to depart from that path and thus fail the mission.



Once the GM sets the objectives, and the obstacles, and so the players have to keep banging their heads against it if they get unlucky, then there is the potential for RPG disaster. I've been a player in those games (never a GM, thankfully) and they generally suck. GM cheating doesn't make it any better in my personal experience.

One exceptoin to the above: well-GMed atmospheric CoC, where the external obstacles are irrelevant and my main job as player is to experience and externalise the collapse into madness. But that's simulationism with a touch of theatre, not challenge-oriented play, and so maybe not an exception after all.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 14, 2020)

Doug McCrae said:


> I think the type of play advocated in Role-Playing Mastery is similar to that advocated in the 1e PHB in the section headed Successful Adventures (pgs 107-109). Players have an objective and they try to achieve it without getting sidetracked. But there’s an important difference – in Role-Playing Mastery the objective is chosen by the GM rather than the players. The reason for this is there has been a shift away from mega-dungeons and towards a more familiar (at least to us) scenario or adventure setup where the players are given a mission at the start of play. There is an adventure path in the sense of a defined set of victory conditions, and possibly quite a number of actions the players will have to undertake to achieve that victory, but because this is strongly challenge-oriented play the GM is actively trying to get the players to depart from that path and thus fail the mission.
> 
> *Setting Objectives*
> 
> ...



So, the goal of the Master GM is then to frustrate the players, but save them if said frustration would end prematurely and by accident, thereby maximizing time spent in frustration.  The goal of the players is to avoid the GM's attempt to frustrate and instead discern the (GM obfuscated) proscribed route that allows for success.  I'm not sure these are laudable play goals.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 15, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> So, the goal of the Master GM is then to frustrate the players, but save them if said frustration would end prematurely and by accident, thereby maximizing time spent in frustration.  The goal of the players is to avoid the GM's attempt to frustrate and instead discern the (GM obfuscated) proscribed route that allows for success.  I'm not sure these are laudable play goals.



Like I posted, though, I've played sessions like this (in the 90s) and have alsorread modules that essentialy presume this and read accounts of play that seemed to be like this (and a lot of this was since the 90s).

The most common version I've seen and heard of is where the "quest-giver" - to whom the players _have_ to resond if there is to be a game, given the basic premises of play in this mode - is actually the villain/traitor, which means that most of what the PCs do ends up being pointless or running contrary to their aspirations, and it all ends up in a highly GM-mediated "big reveal" and showdown.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Nov 17, 2021)

pemerton said:


> the 80s saw the beginning of the idea that this sort of approach is _what it means_ to play a RPG (especially to _roleplay _rather than "rollplay")




Jon Peterson, _The Elusive Shift_ (2020) has shown, I think, that this has to be put back no later than 1976. I started to read it thanks to @Snarf Zagyg's recommendation in this thread.

In _Bunnies & Burrows_ (1976), the authors B Dennis Sustare and Scott Robinson advise referees to fudge (they use the term "shade") dice rolls to keep PCs alive.

_Bunnies & Burrows_ has some very striking text surrounding saving throws and the role of the referee employing them. The authors write, “Through years of Gamemastering, we have found that it helps the games for the GM to be flexible in the use of Saving Throws. Rigid adherence to Saving Throw rules tends to be very deadly, with less fun for the players.” The rules consequently recommend that referees practice a bit of divine intervention, as Gygax would have called it. They explain, “We may shade die rolls just a bit in certain key situations, so that a rabbit may survive to play again.” Rather than letting the dice tell the story, when the destruction of the character is on the line, the referee should exercise discretion and “shade” the results of rolls to preserve the lives of characters—and note that there is no mention here of Gygax’s restriction on doling out such a reprieve only to characters who have earned it, nor of what might make a situation “key” other than that it is potentially lethal...​​Crucially, _Bunnies & Burrows_ also warns that the referee must not let players depend on a referee “acting the part of God too much”—instead a referee must “let the players retain the illusion that they determine their own fates.” When the time comes for divine intervention, would-be deities must practice it in secret: for players, the dramatic uncertainty of the game relies on the “illusion” that it is the dice that decide rather than the discretion of the referee. Thus, players cannot be parties to the execution of the system when the referee decides to “shade” the roll. (pg 140)​


----------



## Doug McCrae (Nov 17, 2021)

Ed Simbalist (co-creator of _Chivalry & Sorcery_) recommends heavy use of GM Force to "tell the story" in the second part of his two part essay "Kismet" in the rpg fanzine _Alarums & Excursions_ #44 (April 1979). Jon Peterson discusses this essay extensively in _The Elusive Shift_ (2020), placing it in the context of both Gary Gygax's advice in the AD&D 1e DMG (1979) and Part I of Lewis Pulsipher's "D&D Campaigns" article series in _White Dwarf_ #1 (June/July 1977).

Only in the second “Kismet” essay did Simbalist unpack his “role-playing mode” of refereeing and what he believed the responsibility for fate truly means in a role-playing game… In the course of role playing, a character “will from time to time be faced with CERTAIN death. At that point the skill of the GM as story teller is put to the test. A good story will not end before its time. So also might be said of a good role playing campaign scenario.”​​When faced with this situation, Simbalist argues that the “story teller” referee “accepts his role as Fate and responsibly works out a solution which does not result in the character’s death.” What Simbalist envisioned here goes far beyond the “shade” that a _Bunnies & Burrows_ referee should cast over a lethal saving throw. It may include all sorts of quiet changes to the game situation that the system generates: a random encounter roll that calls for six skeletons instead delivers only two, or a crushing damage roll might be reduced to a glancing blow. “Where,” Simbalist elaborated, “the game systems thwart my view of the truth of the moment and deny me the goals I have set for the particular scenario or for the campaign as a whole, I IGNORE THE RULES.”...​​Gygax permitted the ignoring of a deadly die roll to prevent unfair punishments, whereas Simbalist allowed it for a different purpose, to preserve the overall narrative that the referee intends for the campaign, which trumps all other concerns for him. But like the “shade” in _Bunnies & Burrows_, this must be done tacitly, behind the figurative referee’s screen, because the referee must guide the story along, as Simbalist put it, “without lessening the tension and anxiety felt by the player whose character is threatened by a certain death” (AE 44). Simbalist stressed that “players should never know when GM discretion is being exercised” and that they “cannot be allowed to count on Fate to step in and save their characters from the consequences of stupidity or miscalculation” because that would spoil what _Bunnies & Burrows_ calls the players’ “illusion that they determine their own fates.”​​By centering role-playing games on the campaign story, Simbalist moved the focus on system execution radically away from players and even designers and instead onto a management of the flow of events hinging on the referee’s dramatic skill. His emphasis on preserving the story anticipated but vastly exceeded the sentiments that would appear in the _Dungeon Masters Guide_ a few months after Simbalist’s “Kismet” essays in 1979: where Gygax would invoke Conan’s narrow escapes in his explanation of saving throws, Simbalist talked about the more formulaic tale of Sinbad. Simbalist related that “Sinbad is destined to triumph over the evil Mage who has usurped power in Baghdad and holds the nation in bondage. He will rescue the princess, marry her, free his people, and engineer the downfall of his enemy. Kismet. Fate” (AE 44). For Gygax, the system is obligated only to provide “a chance, no matter how small,” of survival, whereas Simbalist looked to the referee rather than to the system and assigned the referee the responsibility for casting any “shade” necessary to drive the story in a satisfying direction, all the while performing any sleight of hand necessary to convince the players that the referee is impartially executing the system—to preserve Pulsipher’s “sense of control by the players of their own fate,” though here it is an illusory sense.​​But would players really retain the necessary state of dramatic uncertainty? Curiously, Simbalist concluded his second “Kismet” essay with a note about one of his own characters, a certain Erik Bloodaxe, whose “Wyrd (destiny) was to die after a great slaying of enemies. His sole goal is to attain Valhalla.” It seemed as if Simbalist’s character had some “purpose” in the sense that Mark Chilenskas assigned to characters in his campaign, but it was not a hidden purpose—as a player, Simbalist was fully aware of it. He expressed confidence that the referees would never deprive Erik of this destiny: “Wyrd has decreed and the GMs in our campaign respect that fate and will not give him an ignominious death.” Apparently, his certainty about the preordainment of that character arc did not diminish his own satisfaction with the game; it instead became the game’s premise. “So far I have been denied my destiny, and I still live. I will have my fate! . . . This I know because the GMs in our group will not let it be otherwise. I await only the manner of it.”​​How a player could know and to some degree dictate his character’s destiny in a game where referees maintain the illusion of simply executing an impartial system, rather than steering a story, posed an apparent paradox. But Simbalist’s “Kismet” essays provided the most considered defense of the philosophy criticized in Pulsipher’s _White Dwarf_ 1 essay which had divided D&D players into “those who want to play a game as a game and those who want to play it as a fantasy novel.” (pgs 197-198)​
In this section Peterson discusses Simbalist's defence of his techniques in _Alarums & Excursions_ #47 (July 1979).

For Simbalist, these techniques were in the service of a higher calling: he insisted that “FRP is an art form” and that “only the DM/GM can tell the story of an adventure,” not the dice (AE 47). But although the referee tells the story, this is not to say that players are disenfranchised because “the player ultimately chooses the destiny of his character; insofar as he provides a viable and reasonable story line, the GM’s task is to assist the character to realize his destiny by providing experiences which logically and honestly test the character’s worthiness to attain it.” It is the player’s responsibility to provide that fundamental premise for his or her participation in the game, and it is the referee’s responsibility to nurture that premise. But a game design itself can never substitute for a referee because a referee “can note and process data no game system could handle—the numerous intangibles that are the hallmarks of FRP gaming like personal interaction between the participants, character motivation, or the success of a line of action that arose spontaneously during the adventure.” In Simbalist’s view, the referee has the foremost place in the implementation of role-playing games, something far beyond the reach of mere system design.​​No one familiar with _Chivalry & Sorcery_ could fail to notice that its rulebook contains nothing like the principles that Simbalist expounded at such length in his essays on kismet, story-telling, and the idiocy of the dice. This discrepancy perhaps points to a deeper paradox that helps explain why designers and players lavished such attention on role-playing game philosophy: as able as Simbalist was to explain in an essay what he believed a role-playing game should be, a system translating those principles into rules proved elusive. (pg 201)​


----------



## pemerton (Nov 17, 2021)

Doug McCrae said:


> Jon Peterson, _The Elusive Shift_ (2020) has shown, I think, that this has to be put back no later than 1976.



But I think it becomes canonical in the 80s. I think the change in wording of the Traveller rules is not _leading_. It is _following_ - it is Traveller, in its rulebooks, making clear that it, too, is a RPG in this sense that is crystallising out of the earlier practice and texts you've quoted.



Doug McCrae said:


> How a player could know and to some degree dictate his character’s destiny in a game where referees maintain the illusion of simply executing an impartial system, rather than steering a story, posed an apparent paradox.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> a game design itself can never substitute for a referee because a referee “can note and process data no game system could handle—the numerous intangibles that are the hallmarks of FRP gaming like personal interaction between the participants, character motivation, or the success of a line of action that arose spontaneously during the adventure.” In Simbalist’s view, the referee has the foremost place in the implementation of role-playing games, something far beyond the reach of mere system design.



Some years ago now I posted, this, reflecting on the same Lewis Pulsipher essays you quote Peterson referring to:



pemerton said:


> I do like the advice about not manipulating the players. It was around 1986, with original Oriental Adventures, that I started to discover a way of GMing in which the GM would make stuff up on the spot, while still allowing players the scope to make choices which are genuine in their consequences, thereby avoiding the railroading that Pulsipher warns against. (More than 15 years later I discovered that this approach to GMing had been refined and theorised by Ron Edwards and others at The Forge.)



Of the early RPGs, the one that I know that I think perhaps came closest to this in its system was Classic Traveller. But as per the quote in the OP, instead of trying to follow that path it was pulled back into the emerging consensus of how RPGing should work.


----------



## Haiku Elvis (Nov 17, 2021)

It's funny. Until joining forums like this I hadn't really thought about these things (in this way at least) or really been aware of the debates but coming of role playing age in the late 80s/early 90s if you asked me what a GM does I would instinctively descibe something similar to the choreographed novel of the OP and feel the GMs role is to provide well prepared and pre set up adventures and keep the game on track. 
 However as my first and longest and most formative gaming group was my school friends who were definitely of the "hey screw this quest business. Let's rob the richest merchant in town and use the money to buy magic swords and impress girls" type of players,  if I look back on how I actually GM in practice it's always been more the 'in the now' react to what the players do style. (out of sheer bloody neccesity initially then out of habit) and my carefully crafted scenes become a general grab bag of ideas to throw in the mix in whatever order and form makes sense in reaction to the players actions.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Nov 17, 2021)

The user name @Haiku Elvis is full of win. Welcome.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Nov 17, 2021)

Yeah welcome to the boards @Haiku Elvis !


----------



## Haiku Elvis (Nov 18, 2021)

Thank you @Fenris-77 @hawkeyefan @prabe


----------

