I know this is aimed at @
pemerton but I'm going to run these down and attempt to answer them if you don't mind, Cadence.
I'm having trouble with "mere colour". On the surface that's how I'd describe a lot of 4e (we have a bunch of mechanical and meta-game things we can do that all have the same in game effect, but we're going to reskin them so it seems like you're doing something different). Or is it that when it's well done the 4e player should put in the descriptives of what they're doing and not just the non-colour part of what they're doing?
I believe that pemerton is referring to here is that GM-force has the 1st order effect of:
- Circumvent the legitimacy of mechanical resolution to derive/guide outcomes during conflicts. In its place, GM fiat/imposition/ruling dictates conflict resolution (typically for the sake of storytelling or spotlight sharing impetus)
So take that 1st order effect. What then is the 2nd order effect. It is:
- PC build (choices of scheme/features/powers/spells, etc) acts as "mere" thematic color rather than asserting itself in the fiction by proxy of its deployed resources resolving conflicts. This is because the GM hasn't observed them in the resolving of the conflict...he's observed his own judgement and in the process denied their legitimacy as authentic units of "fiction propulsion.". However, it should be noted that this can backfire wildly and the GM can actually undermine even the "mere" thematic color of a selected PC archetype if the GM-force is applied "inappropriately" against type. I think here is where you may see a sort of player PTSD where not only is their ability to affect the fiction by deploying resources undermined...but their selected archetype is undermined by the GM's imposition within the fiction (that circumvents the players ability to impose their own will through mechanical resolution) that plays against the PC archetype. "My wizard casts <n spell>. "You can't do that here because x." "Uh, I had no way of knowing that beforehand as it isn't in the rules, no setting information was made available to me (the player) and I would think my brilliant, erudite Wizard would know that." "Yeah, well you don't...so you lose the spell...and let me roll percentile dice to see if a wild surge happens and you turn into a chicken..."
On to the 4e question. 4e has very specific markers/insurance with its unified mechanical framework meets Keywords. These Keywords carry both thematic and mechanical heft that is unalterable, not up for veto. Arcane, Fear, Implement, Psychic means:
- The source of the power is Arcane so the caster is drawing on magical energy that permeates the cosmos (rather than directly from Gods, from the primal spirits that pervade the world, etc).
- Fear inspires fright causing forced movement, penalty to attack rolls, or granting combat advantage.
- Implement identifies a power that can be channeled through an implement (eg rod, staff, wand, symbol, totem) which may confer a bonus to attack roll and damage roll (with other effects pending magic).
- Psychic effects target/assail the mind. It is a damage subtype.
These are mandated rules. GMs are not to violate this thematic and mechanical information. So, a refluff of keywords (say Arcane to Divine), provides some different thematic information. Depending on 2nd order interactions (eg vulnerability, resistance, bonus to
n damage, or something encounter specific such as an Aura), there may be some different mechanical bearing (specifically with a change from say Psychic to Fire). However, that change is then observed and has specific, unalterable, load-bearing aspects (thematic and mechanical) that come with it. So no, Keyword change will never be "mere colour". They come with thematic and mechanical codification that is not subject to interpretation or veto (thus immune to GM force).
I'm trying to picture the way a fireball spell in pre-4's resolution would be described relative to a similar fire power in 4e and I'm failing to see it.
It would be the same. There is just more deeply specificed codification in an exception-based design system. The exceptions (where the codification/rules are silent) are then ruled by the GM using the specified guidelines of keywords, DCs and damage expressions by level (infamous p 42). But an Arcane Fire spell would still involve the arcane spellcaster manifesting fire where before there was nothing and using it to whatever end is sought.
Does scene framing mean the GM doesn't roleplay the NPCs? In a recent game I played in, the party came across a girl tied to a stake as a sacrifice to a local witch. We untied her and left a brief sincere note (that we actually wrote down sitting at the table) saying the girl seemed really uncomfortable, we hoped it was all a misunderstanding, and we'd like to come by and chat about it after we brought her home. The GM clearly wasn't expecting us to write a note. If the GM has a clearly set picture in their mind of how an NPC thinks, should they roll to see how she reacts to the note (1e-ish) or just have her react in the logical way for that character (2e-ish). Is the later GM-forcing? Would an ad-hoc "group note writing to a witch" difficulty assignment also have been based on the GM's mental picture of the NPC? Is the only effective difference between the just-deciding and the die-rolling resolutions in this case that a bit of randomness was added?
I'm going to recap my post from pages back that specifies GM-force:
- GM frames scene/presents situation > PCs respond > Resolution mechanics dictating outcomes should go here...BUT...no... > GM circumvents resolution mechanics to force/impose his own will upon the fiction (fudging dice/target or enemy numbers/scene-dynamics), rendering the outcome mandated by the resolution mechanics null, thus re-framing the scene as the GM sees fit.
That is GM force. The term force is not misleading. It clearly implies the the imposition of will (the GMs) over fictional positioning, forcing it toward or away from a particular outcome. In RPG terms the imposition of will and the application of force overpowers mechanical resolution and by proxy, the impetus of PC resources deployed and player decisions made.
In your scenario above, if the ruleset has conflict resolution rules that are in place to dictate the reaction of the witch and the GM ignores them in the stead of "imposing an outcome", that is GM-force. If players have means to deploy resources, and do so fairly and legitimately, to affect the reaction of the witch and impose their desires upon the fiction and the GM circumvents those means/rules in the stead of imposing their own idea/desires of what "should/will" happen, that is GM-force.
Here is the generic conflict resolution system of Dungeon World (p 17):
The Basic Outcomes
* 10 +: You do it with little trouble
* 7-9: You do it, but with complications or trouble
* 6-: The GM says what happens and you mark XP
10 typically allows the player to fully accomplish a task by choosing 3 specified outcomes with perhaps one minor complication with one unchosen outcome remaining. However, that chosen outcome may not be much of a complication so the GM making a move off of it isn't too troublesome for the player. 7-9 typicall allows the players to pick one or two specified outcomes, leaving the unchosen outcomes "up for grabs" for the GM to make a move off of and complicate the adventuring PCs' lives. Now 6- is (as you can see), full on GM rendering of the fiction (by design). This is going to create a large complication for the PCs but it may not be immediate and it may not be on-screen, but it will manifest and make things interesting/difficult for our intrepid heroes. They then get XP from this outcome.
6- is not GM-force. It is a specified outcome of interfacing with the action resolution system of which the PCs bring to bear all means to achieve whatever roll they can get. Further, 6- can, and sometimes does, get "willed into existence" by PC decision-making (fiat) for the XP and the dynamic (fun and not grossly punitive eg impossible odds for survival, SoD, death spiral, or character looks like a bafoon thus revoking archetype legitimacy) complications that the GM is advised to generate as future or immediate content (between the players and their goal). Too many 6- rolls and yes, you're toast because the complications aggregate in such a way that your HPs may be ablated and Death may be claiming you or offering you a (tough) bargain! But it isn't a pass you're awesome, fail you suck...pass you win/survive, fail you lose/die. Resolution mechanics have been engaged, player resource deployment has been leveraged to affect ends, conflict resolution results have been observed. No GM-force.
