Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[Sadras]

Continued play builds trust and can lead us to a point where we make contributions and decisions effortlessly. Constructive criticism can be important because it allows us to communicate how our expectations are being met, not being met, or exceeded. This allows us to meaningfully communicate and collaborate.

Even if we limit the contributions players make to the actions their characters take they are still making creative decisions subject to the creative judgements of all other players. I believe we make these judgements all the time even if we do not directly voice criticism. There is nothing wrong with this.

With respect to this, I agree with @Campbell; including that, in a creative endeavour like RPGing, there's no avoiding some sort of judgements of others' creative efforts, even if it's only keeping one's groan at the GM's latest contrivance an inward one, or a rolled eye to another player that the GM doesn't see.

Inward judgements/evaluations is very different to expressing them overtly and in this case not even questioning them, but the ability to overrule the use of the resource, in this instance Plot Points, and therefore veto the creative effort. @pemerton based on your opening post, this would be a judgement call, and thus I would be railroading according to you, correct? I didn't set a DC (high or low), I made the decision that the Plot Point could not be used to alter the fiction in this particular way.

This raised another question in my mind: what if the player had just declared, speaking as his PC, "I attack the boss!" Would the rest of the table have vetoed that too?

They would have raised an objection and question his character's rationale for deciding on that course of action, but ultimately the decision for what his character would do would rest with the player not with the table (that's the standard buy-in when roleplaying). The player has full control of his character, the Plot Point resource though provides the player control beyond the scope of his character though.

 

[Maxperson]

The advisor can perform whatever actions he wants. But - as a question of framing or adjudication - they won't have any effect.

The inability of those actions to affect the attitude of the Baron (towards both advisor and PCs) has been established by the players' victory in the skill challenge. That's what follows from winning the challenge. It establishes finality.

So far what you have described is that the skill challenge established that the advisor outed himself, and that the player mistakenly thought that the advisor attempting mitigation negated that outing. You then described yourself backing off based on that player's mistaken perception. Since then you have repeatedly said that the challenge to out the advisor also prevents mitigation, even though one doesn't affect the other since they are two separate events. No amount of mitigation would have prevented or negated that outing.

The group is playing classic dungeon-crawling D&D.

* The players come up with a plan to defeat the trolls in room 71 and steal their treasure. Their plan is based on good intelligence about the vulnerability of trolls to fire. Their knowledge of the treasure is the result of casting Contact Other Planes and the various rolls coming up successfully.

* The PCs implement said plan, and defeat the trolls. They take the gold pieces out of the dungeon.

* For a lark (or perhaps vindictively?), the GM decides, retrospectively, that the gold was really an extended-duration Fool's Gold effect, and overnight all the PCs hard-won gp turn into iron. Which robs them of both treasure and XP.

Except that it's not like that at all. I'll re-write the last paragraph to explain what it is really like.

* Unbeknownst to the players, because they failed to ask the question when they cast Contact Other Plane, the troll has a brother who finds out about the death of Grgash at the hands of the PCs. He sets out to try to kill them and bring back the treasure(mitigation).

The possibilities are that he could fail(no mitigation), get the treasure back, but fail to kill the PCs(partial mitigation) or kill them and get the treasure(full mitigation). However, no amount of that attempted mitigation can negate the success of the original action. They did in fact succeed at killing Grgash and getting his treasure out of the dungeon.

What's wrong with that? It's the GM cheating the players out of their victory by abusing his/her supposed authority over the content of the shared fiction.

No it isn't. It's simply the game progressing in a reasonable manner. They didn't find out about the brother who existed prior to their planned kill and snatch of the troll's treasure, and so mitigation could possibly happen. Likewise, the advisor has a brain which existed prior to the party's forced outing, and so mitigation could possibly happen. It's not cheating the players out of anything, and it certainly isn't abuse of any kind.

 

[pemerton]

Inward judgements/evaluations is very different to expressing them overtly and in this case not even questioning them, but the ability to overrule the use of the resource, in this instance Plot Points, and therefore veto the creative effort. @pemerton based on your opening post, this would be a judgement call, and thus I would be railroading according to you, correct? I didn't set a DC (high or low), I made the decision that the Plot Point could not be used to alter the fiction in this particular way.

I think it's definitely a judgement call.

Whether or not it's railroading (as per my OP) depends on the motivation and upshot: is it the GM shaping outcomes to fit a pre-conceived narrative? If it's policing genre or consistency with already established fiction, then no. If it's trying to stop the player pushing the scene in the direction the PC wants (in this case, something happens that "outs" the boss in front of the PCs), then yes.

In the example you give, though, it doesn't seem like it's the GM, but rather the table, exercising a veto.

 

[pemerton]

So far what you have described is that the skill challenge established that the advisor outed himself, and that the player mistakenly thought that the advisor attempting mitigation negated that outing. You then described yourself backing off based on that player's mistaken perception. Since then you have repeatedly said that the challenge to out the advisor also prevents mitigation, even though one doesn't affect the other since they are two separate events. No amount of mitigation would have prevented or negated that outing.

I don't understand why you're trying to correct me on my understanding of an episode of play that I GMed and you didn't, using a mechanic that (as best I'm aware) you are not familiar with and that I am very familiar with.

The players succeeded in a skill challenge which established that the advisor revealed himself in a way that did not undermine the PCs' standing in the eyes of the baron (and other worthies), but rather redounded upon the advisor himself. That's not up for dispute: it's what happened at the table.

The fact that you keep redescribing the outcome, by reference only to a narrow conception of the events in the fiction, rather than the actual outcome, doesn't change the reality of what actually took place. You say the challenge to out the advisor also prevents mitigation, even though one doesn't affect the other since they are two separate events. This assertion is an error. Success in the challenge established, in the fiction, the relationship (i) of the advisor to the baron and (ii) of the baron to the PCs.

I don't know what you mean by "separate events", but neither (i) nor (ii) is separate from the players' success in the skill challenge. They are the direct consequences of that success.

Thus, when - in the next session - I started framing something that put that success into doubt, a player called me on it. He was correct to do so. The players are entitled to their victory, and it is not liable to being undone by GM reframing.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't understand why you're trying to correct me on my understanding of an episode of play that I GMed and you didn't, using a mechanic that (as best I'm aware) you are not familiar with and that I am very familiar with.

The players succeeded in a skill challenge which established that the advisor revealed himself in a way that did not undermine the PCs' standing in the eyes of the baron (and other worthies), but rather redounded upon the advisor himself. That's not up for dispute: it's what happened at the table.

The fact that you keep redescribing the outcome, by reference only to a narrow conception of the events in the fiction, rather than the actual outcome, doesn't change the reality of what actually took place. You say the challenge to out the advisor also prevents mitigation, even though one doesn't affect the other since they are two separate events. This assertion is an error. Success in the challenge established, in the fiction, the relationship (i) of the advisor to the baron and (ii) of the baron to the PCs.

I don't know what you mean by "separate events", but neither (i) nor (ii) is separate from the players' success in the skill challenge. They are the direct consequences of that success.

Thus, when - in the next session - I started framing something that put that success into doubt, a player called me on it. He was correct to do so. The players are entitled to their victory, and it is not liable to being undone by GM reframing.

The problem here is one of communication. Because it's obvious to you how your mechanic works, you haven't explained it well, and, even when you note that Max may not be familiar with the mechanic you used you just insist he can't understand instead of explaining it.

Here's how I understand it. The players announced an intention to get the advisor to out himself. The intention was that this be complete and irrevocable -- that, if successful, the advisor would be placed into a position where there was no mitigation of his failure. You framed the challenge necessary to accomplish this intent, and play commenced. The players were successful which means you have to honor their intent going forward -- the advisor cannot mitigate the result because that would be against the intent of the challenge. In this framework, the NPCs involved have no ability to force an agenda outside of the challenge. In other words, the advisor cannot concoct a new plan that would thwart the player's intent because the advisor, as an NPC, is entirely reactionary outside of framing -- the NPC cannot force a new challenge on the players, he's only a piece to be used as part of a challenge the players set for themselves. NPCs are framing devices only.

Max, on the other hand, sees that the initial intent of 'get the advisor to out himself' was accomplished, but he sees the advisor has having an agenda that can be pushed against the players via narration -- to Max, the advisor isn't held to outcome as immutable, but can now enact a new agenda to limit the damage. He's still outed himself, but he is still free to act against the PCs. In this sense, the NPCs have and act upon their own agendas even outside of the challenge framing -- ie, the NPC can force a new challenge on the players. NPCs have individual agency against the PCs.

This is part and parcel of the meta discussion going on here, between DM-centric and Player-centric playstyles and resolution mechanics. In a player centric game, the world and it's NPCs are framing devices only -- they exist only to provide the challenges against player stated intents. In a DM-centric game, the world and NPCs have their own agendas that they persue, and can force those agendas against players. This is really the critical divide I discern between the concepts -- in one, the world exists only as antagonist to the player desires, in the other, the world exists for players to pit themselves against it. The difference coming from the source of struggle, from the PCs or from the world. Of course, these can be blended to a lesser or greater degree with a lesser or greater degree of success.

 

[pemerton]

The players announced an intention to get the advisor to out himself. The intention was that this be complete and irrevocable -- that, if successful, the advisor would be placed into a position where there was no mitigation of his failure. You framed the challenge necessary to accomplish this intent, and play commenced. The players were successful which means you have to honor their intent going forward -- the advisor cannot mitigate the result because that would be against the intent of the challenge. In this framework, the NPCs involved have no ability to force an agenda outside of the challenge. In other words, the advisor cannot concoct a new plan that would thwart the player's intent because the advisor, as an NPC, is entirely reactionary outside of framing -- the NPC cannot force a new challenge on the players, he's only a piece to be used as part of a challenge the players set for themselves. NPCs are framing devices only.

Max, on the other hand, sees that the initial intent of 'get the advisor to out himself' was accomplished, but he sees the advisor has having an agenda that can be pushed against the players via narration -- to Max, the advisor isn't held to outcome as immutable, but can now enact a new agenda to limit the damage. He's still outed himself, but he is still free to act against the PCs. In this sense, the NPCs have and act upon their own agendas even outside of the challenge framing -- ie, the NPC can force a new challenge on the players. NPCs have individual agency against the PCs.

This characterisation of play seems to involve a category error: it posits that NPCs exercise causal power over the events at the gaming table.

That is impossible, though, because NPCs are purely imaginary, and imaginary beings don't exercise causal influence over real-world events.

The issue is not about "NPC agency" - it's about authorship, and how the content of the shared fiction is established.

That is, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is not "see[ing] the advisor as having an agenda that can be pushed against the players via narration" (the advisor doesn't narrate - the advisor simply acts). Rather, Maxperson is seeing the GM as enjoying the authority to put into question, in some fashion, the advisor's relationship with the baron in spite of the outcome of the skill challenge (he hasn't explained exactly how this would be done: does he imagine the GM rolling a CHA/Diplomacy/Persuasion check for the advisor against some DC also set by the GM?).

Whereas I have repeatedly, and quite clearly, asserted that the relationship between advisor and baron is settled as part of the skill challenge. It's one of the outcomes that the players, by their play of their PCs, have secured. This is why I made the comparison to reducing an enemy to zero hp; or to a moral or loyalty check in classic D&D. These are all mechanics the produce finality in resolution: they don't simply generate temporary pertubations in the fiction which the GM is free to retest or reopen.

I think that if I had described the PCs using (say) some sort of Geas spell on the advisor, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] would not be positing that the matter of the advisor's capacity to change his relationship with the baron is still open. Which is to say, Maxperson is not confused, in general, by the concept of finality in resolution. For whatever reason, though, he seems unable to accept that finality had been achieved on this occasion, via this particular mechanical procedure.

In a player centric game, the world and it's NPCs are framing devices only -- they exist only to provide the challenges against player stated intents. In a DM-centric game, the world and NPCs have their own agendas that they persue, and can force those agendas against players.

This is not correct. (And, again, appears to involve the same category error.)

The advisor had his own agenda. He pursued it. He attempted to force the PCs' hands, in two ways (at least: the session was several years ago, and so even with the benefit of an actual play report my memory is not perfect):

(1) The advisor tried to trick/goad the PCs into revealing information about the whereabouts of the tapestry; the players dealt with this by such measures as taking steps to ensure that the most vulnerable PC, the dwarven fighter/cleric with CHA 10 and poor social skills, was not at the table with the advisor;

(2) The advisor escalated things to try and force the PCs to reveal him to the baron, so that they would be tarnished as trying to smear him and/or take advantage of his magic secrets (eg the tapestry), rather than being the heroes who had saved the baron from his influence. Had the players failed at the challenge, it is likely that something of this sort would have happened, as the evening would have ended with the advisor leaving the dinner, apparently forced out by the PCs speaking against him but not proving their case.​

His attempts to do this, however, failed. The PCs kept the information about the tapestry secret; and the advisor's strategy (2) ended up backfiring, as the baron accepted the word of the dwarven "paladin", in the context of the advisor being goaded into revealing himself.

Just as, in combat, a NPC can't keep pursuing his/her agenda if reduced to zero hp, or if his/her moral breaks; so likewise in a skill challenge. If the challenge is resolved with the players successful, and their success defeats the NPC's agenda, then that is as it is: the agenda has failed.

This is really the critical divide I discern between the concepts -- in one, the world exists only as antagonist to the player desires, in the other, the world exists for players to pit themselves against it.

In my view this doesn't mark out any meaningful distinction.

There is no meaningful difference that I can see between the world exists for players to pit themselves against, as an antagonist (which is your characterisation of "player-centric") and the world and NPCs have their own agendas, that they force against players (which is your characterisation of "GM-centric"). Both describe relationships of opposition between the desires of PCs and the desires of NPCs/antagonists (or "the gameworld" in some more general, somewhat anthropomorphised, conception).

The difference, rather, is over who has the capacity to resolve those conflicts. Can the players do so, via action resolution procedures? Or do conflicts continue on until, on whatever basis, the GM deems them to be exhausted as the subject-matter of play. [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] and [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] appear to be expressing the latter preference.

That preference may lead to fun RPGing, or not, depending on a range of factors including (perhaps most importantly) the preferences of the participants. But it seems pretty clear to me that it is not a preference about the "agency" of NPCs/antagonists, or their capacity to oppose the PCs and thereby to be a source of opposition to the players. It is a preference about who exercises what sort of control over the content of the fiction, and be what sorts of procedures that control is exercised.

 

[pemerton]

The idea of finality can be approached fairly straightforwardly by considering a system like MHRP/Cortex, which (unlike D&D, any edition) uses an identical resolution system for all sorts of conflicts.

If the players (via their action declarations for their PCs) inflict a sufficent degree of Physical Stress on the advisor, they knock him out cold. At which point the scene is resolved, and - however much, as a matter of colour, we imagine the advisor struggling against his bonds when he regains consciousness - he has been defeated and can't come back as a physical threat until something external to him occurs that would open up that possibility.

If the players (via their action declarations fo rthe PCs) inflict a Treachery Revealed complication of succicient severity on the advisor, then likewise the scene ends, via exactly the same mechanical pathway, and - however much, as a matter of colour, we imagine the advisor wheedling and whining Wormtongue-like to the baron - he has been defetaed and can't come back as a social threat until something external to him occurs that would open up that possibility.

One of the significant areas of GM judgement in running a game in which the players can establish final results via action resolution (and each of 4e, BW and Cortex/MHRP is such a game; D&D is more generally, also, at least in some respect, eg combat) is determining when to allow that something external to a defeated threat/challenge has allowed it to re-emerge as a threat/challenge. Is this permissible simply as a matter of framing, if enough time/action has passed? Is it something to be done only as a consequence of failure, and if so, what sort of failure?

One thing that is at stake here is the basic issue of the repetitiveness in the fiction: is the game going to turn into a respawn-fest? or a version of comic book melodrama, where every 50 episodes or so Peter has to stop Aunt May from marrying a supervillain, while Batman has to deal with the Joker again.

But another thing, which arguably is more important at least in the sort of RPGing I prefer, is the integrity of the fiction as determined by the players' action declarations for their PCs. The GM has a duty to honour this; and a casual overturning of player victories does not discharge that duty.

I don't think this is something in respect of which there can be hard-and-fast rules. But it is not something (in my view) where the GM can afford to be careless, or to satisfy him-/herself with the thought that "of course the BBEG will have a henchman capable of casting Resurrection, or Break Enchantment, or, . . ." The issues is not one of in-fiction plausibility or explicability, but of respect owed, at the table, among participants in the game.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This characterisation of play seems to involve a category error: it posits that NPCs exercise causal power over the events at the gaming table.

That is impossible, though, because NPCs are purely imaginary, and imaginary beings don't exercise causal influence over real-world events.

The issue is not about "NPC agency" - it's about authorship, and how the content of the shared fiction is established.

That is, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is not "see[ing] the advisor as having an agenda that can be pushed against the players via narration" (the advisor doesn't narrate - the advisor simply acts). Rather, Maxperson is seeing the GM as enjoying the authority to put into question, in some fashion, the advisor's relationship with the baron in spite of the outcome of the skill challenge (he hasn't explained exactly how this would be done: does he imagine the GM rolling a CHA/Diplomacy/Persuasion check for the advisor against some DC also set by the GM?).

Whereas I have repeatedly, and quite clearly, asserted that the relationship between advisor and baron is settled as part of the skill challenge. It's one of the outcomes that the players, by their play of their PCs, have secured. This is why I made the comparison to reducing an enemy to zero hp; or to a moral or loyalty check in classic D&D. These are all mechanics the produce finality in resolution: they don't simply generate temporary pertubations in the fiction which the GM is free to retest or reopen.

I think that if I had described the PCs using (say) some sort of Geas spell on the advisor, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] would not be positing that the matter of the advisor's capacity to change his relationship with the baron is still open. Which is to say, Maxperson is not confused, in general, by the concept of finality in resolution. For whatever reason, though, he seems unable to accept that finality had been achieved on this occasion, via this particular mechanical procedure.

This is not correct. (And, again, appears to involve the same category error.)

The advisor had his own agenda. He pursued it. He attempted to force the PCs' hands, in two ways (at least: the session was several years ago, and so even with the benefit of an actual play report my memory is not perfect):

(1) The advisor tried to trick/goad the PCs into revealing information about the whereabouts of the tapestry; the players dealt with this by such measures as taking steps to ensure that the most vulnerable PC, the dwarven fighter/cleric with CHA 10 and poor social skills, was not at the table with the advisor;

(2) The advisor escalated things to try and force the PCs to reveal him to the baron, so that they would be tarnished as trying to smear him and/or take advantage of his magic secrets (eg the tapestry), rather than being the heroes who had saved the baron from his influence. Had the players failed at the challenge, it is likely that something of this sort would have happened, as the evening would have ended with the advisor leaving the dinner, apparently forced out by the PCs speaking against him but not proving their case.​

His attempts to do this, however, failed. The PCs kept the information about the tapestry secret; and the advisor's strategy (2) ended up backfiring, as the baron accepted the word of the dwarven "paladin", in the context of the advisor being goaded into revealing himself.

Just as, in combat, a NPC can't keep pursuing his/her agenda if reduced to zero hp, or if his/her moral breaks; so likewise in a skill challenge. If the challenge is resolved with the players successful, and their success defeats the NPC's agenda, then that is as it is: the agenda has failed.

In my view this doesn't mark out any meaningful distinction.

There is no meaningful difference that I can see between the world exists for players to pit themselves against, as an antagonist (which is your characterisation of "player-centric") and the world and NPCs have their own agendas, that they force against players (which is your characterisation of "GM-centric"). Both describe relationships of opposition between the desires of PCs and the desires of NPCs/antagonists (or "the gameworld" in some more general, somewhat anthropomorphised, conception).

The difference, rather, is over who has the capacity to resolve those conflicts. Can the players do so, via action resolution procedures? Or do conflicts continue on until, on whatever basis, the GM deems them to be exhausted as the subject-matter of play. [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] and [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] appear to be expressing the latter preference.

That preference may lead to fun RPGing, or not, depending on a range of factors including (perhaps most importantly) the preferences of the participants. But it seems pretty clear to me that it is not a preference about the "agency" of NPCs/antagonists, or their capacity to oppose the PCs and thereby to be a source of opposition to the players. It is a preference about who exercises what sort of control over the content of the fiction, and be what sorts of procedures that control is exercised.

No error, just a willful misinterpretation on your part in order to create a complaint. Of course NPCs don't exist, neither do advisors, barons, or PCs. I didn't feel it necessary to point out the obvious. However, a fictional construct can be assigned agendas (else how do stories work?), and those can be played with integrity by the DM/GM. This was the context in which I presented everything because I felt it obvious that one would understand that NPCs aren't real. I regret my error.

So, if you could respond to the post again, this time with the understanding that 'NPCs' and 'NPC agendas' refer to a DM representing pre-established fictional impulses with integrity and honesty, maybe we can go somewhere. So long as we're mired in 'but your post doesn't make sense because I refuse to connect the obvious dots and instead am standing on a semantic argument that NPCs are actually real,' I fear we may not ever progress.

 

[TwoSix]

Thus, when - in the next session - I started framing something that put that success into doubt, a player called me on it. He was correct to do so. The players are entitled to their victory, and it is not liable to being undone by GM reframing.

Interesting, that. What you accepted as a natural and appropriate pushback by the player, I imagine would not be acceptable in [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], et al's games. The DM has a much wider latitude to frame new challenges in their gaming model. Social contract is, as always, key.

The difference, rather, is over who has the capacity to resolve those conflicts. Can the players do so, via action resolution procedures? Or do conflicts continue on until, on whatever basis, the GM deems them to be exhausted as the subject-matter of play. [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] and [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] appear to be expressing the latter preference.

That preference may lead to fun RPGing, or not, depending on a range of factors including (perhaps most importantly) the preferences of the participants. But it seems pretty clear to me that it is not a preference about the "agency" of NPCs/antagonists, or their capacity to oppose the PCs and thereby to be a source of opposition to the players. It is a preference about who exercises what sort of control over the content of the fiction, and be what sorts of procedures that control is exercised.

I feel like the pertinent question here is "Does your game procedure allow for the framing of scenes by the DM that are not in response to explicit player declaration?" For example, to use the advisor concept introduced previously, let's say that the advisor is enraged by the PC's success at reducing his status in court. He is so enraged that he performs an arcane ritual in secret to summon a malevolent extraplanar entity, which he commands to attack the PCs.

I think having said demon attack the PCs in retribution would be a natural and expected consequence in "living world"/"NPC agenda" play procedure games. The PCs have angered the advisor, having the advisor retaliate is a second-order consequence of their actions. But this framing would be problematic in a BW/Cortex style game, as the advisor's action aren't a direct consequence of any PC's failure to mechanically reach their intent. Now, being attacked by a demon could be a consequence of a hundred other possible future failures on the PC's part, and tying the demon's appearance back to the spurned advisor would make a satisfying narration for that consequence. But ultimately, you wouldn't introduce a summoned demon simply as something for the PCs to have a conflict with without player input.

 

[Imaro]

This characterisation of play seems to involve a category error: it posits that NPCs exercise causal power over the events at the gaming table.

That is impossible, though, because NPCs are purely imaginary, and imaginary beings don't exercise causal influence over real-world events.

The issue is not about "NPC agency" - it's about authorship, and how the content of the shared fiction is established.

Okay not sure I agree with this. What "real-world events" are you speaking too? My understanding of the area of contention seems to be around in-game events where the NPC can exercise causal power over said events. You may exercise a playstyle where that isn't a desired aspect of play but that doesn't make it impossible.

That is, @Maxperson is not "see[ing] the advisor as having an agenda that can be pushed against the players via narration" (the advisor doesn't narrate - the advisor simply acts). Rather, Maxperson is seeing the GM as enjoying the authority to put into question, in some fashion, the advisor's relationship with the baron in spite of the outcome of the skill challenge (he hasn't explained exactly how this would be done: does he imagine the GM rolling a CHA/Diplomacy/Persuasion check for the advisor against some DC also set by the GM?).

No... I think you have it wrong... mainly because I see the advisor as being capable of having an agenda that can be pushed via narration (by the DM/GM of course just as the players narrate the agendas for their PC's). you say this isn't possible but unless we're getting caught up around the pedantic point of the fictional advisor not being able to narrate (which I think is minor in the realm of the bigger picture)... I've yet to see you posit why the advisor having an agenda (and it being narrated by whoever is playing the advisor) isn't possible as opposed to not preferable to you.

Whereas I have repeatedly, and quite clearly, asserted that the relationship between advisor and baron is settled as part of the skill challenge. It's one of the outcomes that the players, by their play of their PCs, have secured. This is why I made the comparison to reducing an enemy to zero hp; or to a moral or loyalty check in classic D&D. These are all mechanics the produce finality in resolution: they don't simply generate temporary pertubations in the fiction which the GM is free to retest or reopen.

I think that if I had described the PCs using (say) some sort of Geas spell on the advisor, @Maxperson would not be positing that the matter of the advisor's capacity to change his relationship with the baron is still open. Which is to say, Maxperson is not confused, in general, by the concept of finality in resolution. For whatever reason, though, he seems unable to accept that finality had been achieved on this occasion, via this particular mechanical procedure.

But even with your example of a geas spell... it isn't a permanent settling of said relationship. It has a duration, means of dispelling it, etc. I don't think the confusion was around finality in resolution but around, as @Ovinomancer cited, a difference of playstyle in how NPC's are run and what purpose they serve.

This is not correct. (And, again, appears to involve the same category error.)

The advisor had his own agenda. He pursued it. He attempted to force the PCs' hands, in two ways (at least: the session was several years ago, and so even with the benefit of an actual play report my memory is not perfect):

(1) The advisor tried to trick/goad the PCs into revealing information about the whereabouts of the tapestry; the players dealt with this by such measures as taking steps to ensure that the most vulnerable PC, the dwarven fighter/cleric with CHA 10 and poor social skills, was not at the table with the advisor;

(2) The advisor escalated things to try and force the PCs to reveal him to the baron, so that they would be tarnished as trying to smear him and/or take advantage of his magic secrets (eg the tapestry), rather than being the heroes who had saved the baron from his influence. Had the players failed at the challenge, it is likely that something of this sort would have happened, as the evening would have ended with the advisor leaving the dinner, apparently forced out by the PCs speaking against him but not proving their case.​

His attempts to do this, however, failed. The PCs kept the information about the tapestry secret; and the advisor's strategy (2) ended up backfiring, as the baron accepted the word of the dwarven "paladin", in the context of the advisor being goaded into revealing himself.

Can I ask two questions...

1.) Who initiated a mechanical resolution of this?
2.) How was that mechanical resolution implemented?

Just as, in combat, a NPC can't keep pursuing his/her agenda if reduced to zero hp, or if his/her moral breaks; so likewise in a skill challenge. If the challenge is resolved with the players successful, and their success defeats the NPC's agenda, then that is as it is: the agenda has failed.

But the PC's implemented their agenda and it succeeded... what I (and others I believe) don't understand is why the advisor can not then pursue a different agenda of mitigating the fall out in the eyes of the Baron (I mean this stuff happens in fiction all the time). IMO your analogies all seem off... I feel like this is akin to your PC loosing a battle... then going up a level, finding a magic sword and going back to ambush the same guy who beat you... and you as DM claiming the battle between you two was already decided you can never fight him in any way again. IMO... it's not the same challenge it is a different challenge with a (slightly) different agenda.

In my view this doesn't mark out any meaningful distinction.

There is no meaningful difference that I can see between the world exists for players to pit themselves against, as an antagonist (which is your characterisation of "player-centric") and the world and NPCs have their own agendas, that they force against players (which is your characterisation of "GM-centric"). Both describe relationships of opposition between the desires of PCs and the desires of NPCs/antagonists (or "the gameworld" in some more general, somewhat anthropomorphised, conception).

The difference, rather, is over who has the capacity to resolve those conflicts. Can the players do so, via action resolution procedures? Or do conflicts continue on until, on whatever basis, the GM deems them to be exhausted as the subject-matter of play. @Maxperson and @Lanefan appear to be expressing the latter preference.

That preference may lead to fun RPGing, or not, depending on a range of factors including (perhaps most importantly) the preferences of the participants. But it seems pretty clear to me that it is not a preference about the "agency" of NPCs/antagonists, or their capacity to oppose the PCs and thereby to be a source of opposition to the players. It is a preference about who exercises what sort of control over the content of the fiction, and be what sorts of procedures that control is exercised.

Yeah I think you're missing the point. GM Driven games don't by necessity mean players can't resolve the conflicts through action resolution procedures. It seems the difference is that in GM driven games... well the GM has just as much right to use said resolution procedures for NPC's as well... this leads to the bigger difference I feel [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] seems to be driving at... those of agency and who is the protagonist. In a player driven game, as far as I have been able to tell only the players through their characters ever act as protagonists and the NPC's, setting, color, history, etc. only exist and are only necessary when facilitating the goal of allowing that protagonism to be expressed, they are only ever reactive (whether as a success or consequence) to the players actions.

In a GM driven game both players and GM are able to express agency and protagonism through their characters. The GM can drive action just as readily as the players through having agendas and goals for NPC's that are mutable and independent of the PC's actions, having them take proactive actions to realize those agendas in the game (whether that is through means known by the PC's or as you call it secret backstory the players may not be aware of), and leveraging the same mechanics the players can, and perhaps even some they can't, for resolution of actions. Granted I could be off base with this but this, IMO is the high level difference I've been able to suss out between the two styles.