Beginning to Doubt That RPG Play Can Be Substantively "Character-Driven"

[Fenris-77]

I think this conversation has continued without anyone asking and answer the obvious question:

"Under what circumstances and for what reasons would a GM use Force?"

There are corner cases, but broadly, I would say the answer to the question becomes:

"Because simply adhering to the rules and/or authority distribution of the game doesn't provide the desired experience."

But....

What about the case when it does?

Why would a GM use Force then?

Because he's a jerkwad that thinks his enjoyment of the game is more important that anyone else's? It's not really any different that the kind of player who will insist on going off-piste simply because he wants to be in charge of the fiction. In both cases the individual isn't (probably isn't) adhering to the social contract of the table. I do think that a GM, in any system, has more choices where "desired experience" is a major component of his heuristic, and GMs generally have more opportunities to upset the apple cart by not conforming to table expectations.

it's possible that we also have subtly (or not so) differences in how we're using the term 'GM force'.

 

[Numidius]

Fear of improvising
Lazyness
One true wayness

 

[Manbearcat]

@prabe and @Fenris-77

I would say both of those cases fall under:

"Because simply adhering to the rules and/or authority distribution of the game doesn't yield the desired experience.”

In prabe’s case, there is no table consensus on the desired experience (therefore the game doesn’t yield the desired experience.).

In Fenris’s case, the GM is unhappy with the game’s hardwired authority distribution and wants more power over narrative trajectory (therefore the game doesn’t yield the desired experience.).

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think this conversation has continued without anyone asking and answer the obvious question:

"Under what circumstances and for what reasons would a GM use Force?"

There are corner cases, but broadly, I would say the answer to the question becomes:

"Because simply adhering to the rules and/or authority distribution of the game doesn't provide the desired experience."

I know I've used it when, for whatever reason, the gaming session is just not all that fun for everyone. When that happens, I've "stepped in" to make sure things move in what I hope will be a more interesting direction. Preferably, the players would be the ones to instigate this shift, but if not, then I've done it.

I used to do it in my early days to keep the game focused on the material I had prepared and/or wanted to run. I was less comfortable with coming up with things on the fly than I am now, or with relinquishing authorial control.

But....

What about the case when it does?

Why would a GM use Force then?

It's hard to say for me. The absence of relevant mechanics to determine an outcome that's in question, maybe?

Barring any kind of broken play that needs correcting (bad players, bad GM, bad match of the two, or similar), I'm really not sure. If things are going according to plan, then it's hard to justify forcing them back on track. Why would there be a need?

 

[prabe]

@prabe and @Fenris-77

I would say both of those cases fall under:

"Because simply adhering to the rules and/or authority distribution of the game doesn't yield the desired experience.”

In prabe’s case, there is no table consensus on the desired experience (therefore the game doesn’t yield the desired experience.).

In Fenris’s case, the GM is unhappy with the game’s hardwired authority distribution and wants more power over narrative trajectory (therefore the game doesn’t yield the desired experience.).

So, your answer to why the GM uses Force in the case where adhering to the rules and/or authority distribution of the game is "Because simply adhering to the rules and/or authority distribution of the game doesn't yield the desired experience.” That seems about as helpful as an infinite loop.

 

[Manbearcat]

So, your answer to why the GM uses Force in the case where adhering to the rules and/or authority distribution of the game is "Because simply adhering to the rules and/or authority distribution of the game doesn't yield the desired experience.” That seems about as helpful as an infinite loop.

I think you've got appraisal of the situation slightly off. Its not really a tautology. What we have is this arrangement:

"Stuff works. Why do something else?"

The response cannot then be to say:

"Stuff doesn't work, that's why."

If you're saying that stuff cannot work, then that is another conversation.

However, I agree with both of you that those two cases you've cited are archetypal cases where GM's use Force (because the desired experience hasn't been met through simply playing the game by the rules.). There is a huge amount of utility in figuring out all the use cases of that (which we can certainly do now!), but that isn't what I was asking.

 

[prabe]

I think you've got appraisal of the situation slightly off. Its not really a tautology. What we have is this arrangement:

"Stuff works. Why do something else?"

The response cannot then be to say:

"Stuff doesn't work, that's why."

If you're saying that stuff cannot work, then that is another conversation.

However, I agree with both of you that those two cases you've cited are archetypal cases where GM's use Force (because the desired experience hasn't been met through simply playing the game by the rules.). There is a huge amount of utility in figuring out all the use cases of that (which we can certainly do now!), but that isn't what I was asking.

Fair enough. I think, then, that the only reason would be some misunderstanding on the GM's part. Either the GM misunderstands the rules, or the GM misunderstands the desired experience. That's still bad GMing, but it's not willfully bad GMing (which both @Fenris-77 and I were thinking likely, I think).

I'm guessing you'll say this is still a case of stuff not working, but I'd say it's a case of someone not knowing something is working.

 

[Manbearcat]

I know I've used it when, for whatever reason, the gaming session is just not all that fun for everyone. When that happens, I've "stepped in" to make sure things move in what I hope will be a more interesting direction. Preferably, the players would be the ones to instigate this shift, but if not, then I've done it.

I used to do it in my early days to keep the game focused on the material I had prepared and/or wanted to run. I was less comfortable with coming up with things on the fly than I am now, or with relinquishing authorial control.

In this case above, were you nullifying one or more player's input in order to wrest control of the gamestate and the overall trajectory of play toward your preferred gamestate/trajectory?

It's hard to say for me. The absence of relevant mechanics to determine an outcome that's in question, maybe?

I may need t know more, but this doesn't sound like a case of Force to me. So long as a participant's input isn't being willfully nullified in order for the GM to maintain control of the gamestate/trajectory of play, then this just sounds like bog-standardm, corner-case adjudication that happens in most all games.

Barring any kind of broken play that needs correcting (bad players, bad GM, bad match of the two, or similar), I'm really not sure. If things are going according to plan, then it's hard to justify forcing them back on track. Why would there be a need?

Agreed. This is where I'm at. If we can agree that this state is attainable, then why, if this state has been attained sans-Force, would there be a need for Force?

 

[Manbearcat]

Fair enough. I think, then, that the only reason would be some misunderstanding on the GM's part. Either the GM misunderstands the rules, or the GM misunderstands the desired experience. That's still bad GMing, but it's not willfully bad GMing (which both @Fenris-77 and I were thinking likely, I think).

I'm guessing you'll say this is still a case of stuff not working, but I'd say it's a case of someone not knowing something is working.

There you go!

That is the answer I was looking for.

"Stuff working but someone not knowing something is working."

Great post. I felt like there was something out there just beyond my reach but I couldn't think of it. That's it!

I think another thing may be "stuff is working, but the GM is afraid that this is a fluke and it won't continue to work."

 

[Fenris-77]

Agreed. This is where I'm at. If we can agree that this state is attainable, then why, if this state has been attained sans-Force, would there be a need for Force?

I agree with this and @prabe 's response. Both that the state is attainable and also that the use of force in a situation where it has been attained is questionable and likely indexes either poor intentions toward the social contract or a lack of understanding of the state. Setting aside cases of willfully bad GMing I think we have something interesting to talk about.