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

[hawkeyefan]

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?

In some cases, probably, yeah. Most of those cases would have likely been to apply Force to end one player's overindulgence in roleplaying mundane encounters in order to allow things to move along for everyone else.

I'm sure I could try and come up with more egregious examples if I gave it some thought. But this is years ago.

More recently, when running a prepared adventure for 5E (and likely my last time doing so) I totally narrated the results of a path that the PCs had set upon. To summarize quickly, the archvillain of the story is the Lich Acererak, and the PCs need to brave his dungeon, the Tomb of Annihilation, in order to break a curse that he's set upon the land. The dungeon is filled with all manner of traps and monsters and so on. There is one part of the Tomb that is actually an extradimensional testing ground for the traps. Almost a "beta" version of the tomb. Kind of an interesting concept, I thought.

But I don't know if it was an interesting concept for play. My players wandered into the beta version but with no understanding of what it was. The book suggests that it is an exact duplicate of the Tomb, except with no inhabitants. I realized that this was going to cause more frustration than fun as they tried to (a)figure this out, (b)put this knowledge to meaningful use, and (c)require me to track positions of the party across two identical dungeons, and what had been uncovered in which location, and what had not.

So when this all dawned on me, I simply narrated "You realize that you've wandered into a demiplane that is a duplicate of the tomb, likely a testing ground for the traps and hazards Acererak has used" and called it a day.

I don't know if this counts as nullifying their decision, but I certainly altered the outcome to be different than it would have if we played it out as the book suggested.

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.

So I suppose GM Fiat isn't always the same as GM Force.....that if the system in place says "The Gm Decides" is the method of adjudication, then that is not a case of Force.

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?

This would seem to imply that it must be a breach of process, whether willing or unwilling.

But I'm not sure if that jibes with some earlier talking points in the thread.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think the BitD example falls of the rails a little when you take a closer look at what 'no agenda' means set next to what actually happens at the table. If the GM is making choices about what limited success looks like, or deciding what the cost of failure looks like, he is making those decision based on, to use the term above, an 'agenda'. The GM can't GM without doing this because the nature of that role at the table means constant decision making, and decisions are made on the basis of some criteria set or heuristic. Whatever that heuristic is, it's the GMs, not the players'. This is made even clearer when you look at the notion of fictional framing. It might indeed be the players who set the initial frame, but it's the GM who fills the frame so that the players can play. That filling of the initial frame is also a series of decisions, which are also made by the GM using some sort of heuristic. A third example is the one of consequences on a larger scale. To continue with the BitD example, iot is the GM, not the players, who largely decides what the broader implication of the player's actions will be - the reaction of other factions etc, and so again, we have decisions based on heuristic of some kind. In all three cases that heuristic will necessarily include value judgments about good and bad, better or worse, interesting and not interesting, and in all those cases based on the GMs idea about the fiction present at the table.

BitD might involve more back and forth when it comes to control over the fiction, but it's still a back and forth

I think this says many good things, but still misses the mark. Force is about overriding player input to acheive the GM's desured result. If the GM is just participating in creating the fiction according to their role on the game, Force isn't present. Of course the GM will have input into the fiction!

 

[Fenris-77]

I think this says many good things, but still misses the mark. Force is about overriding player input to acheive the GM's desured result. If the GM is just participating in creating the fiction according to their role on the game, Force isn't present. Of course the GM will have input into the fiction!

All I was getting at is that the idea of force is a lot more nuanced than just pertaining to obvious and overt instances of "overriding player input". There is always a tension between the player's and GM's various inputs into the fiction and the GM always has a desired result, and his choices as GM generally index that desired result. I think it's missing the mark to try and make the distinction you're trying to make. I might be suborning the common usage of 'GM force' here, but I'm doing it on purpose. The GMs whole job is to use his input into the fiction, whatever that is, to try and help create the best version of whatever the social contract at the table has decided is the optimal play experience (ideally anyway). With multiple players there are enough competing inputs at the table that even a good GM with honorable intentions is going to have to pick and choose and occasionally override individual player input just to keep the ball rolling. I'm not suggesting that this is a bad thing, rather the opposite in fact, what's important though is that the definition of GM force that gets bandied around would also apply to my example.

Specifically, I feel like we need to move beyond the notion that the idea of 'players' is monolithic at the table. That admission allows us to press the discussion past the rather tired notion of 'sides' into the realm of the actually descriptive when it comes to parsing what actually happens at the table.

 

[Manbearcat]

Specifically, I feel like we need to move beyond the notion that the idea of 'players' is monolithic at the table. That admission allows us to press the discussion past the rather tired notion of 'sides' into the realm of the actually descriptive when it comes to parsing what actually happens at the table.

Can you clarify the usage of "monolithic" in the first sentence here, please?

Are you using this to say "at any given moment of play, there will be competing interests among the participants as to how the gamestate will progress from here to there?"

If so, I completely agree with that (and I damn sure hope so...play would be unbelievably static without that!).

However, I wonder if you're also saying something else alongside that (and you can correct me if I'm wrong):

1) Because of these competing micro-interests there can't be table consensus on macro issues (most importantly to this discussion "how authority is distributed and how to resolve the way gamestate a evolves to gamestate b).

2) Because of the premise of (1), the big macro questions cannot be offloaded onto system, but rather must be either (a) handled by a "lead participant" (GM-type) or (b) achieved via consensus-building on a case-by-case basis.

That I don't agree with.

---

Take the following Dungeon World move from The Dashing Hero playbook.

A Lover In Every Port (CHA)
When you enter a town that you’ve been to before (your call), roll +CHA. On a 10+, there’s an old flame of yours who is willing to assist you somehow. On a 7-9, they’re willing to help you, for a price. On a miss, your romantic misadventures make life more complicated for the party.

You might have 4 different participants at the table (GM and 3 players.

Upon disembarking to Blacksalt Flats from the ship they hired, they may each have diverging ideas about what they want to do right now (Sally wants to Resupply, Jack wants to hit the inn to Rest and Recover before things go pear-shaped, Burglenurp wants to Consult the Oracle about an omen of ill portent that they were hit with on the journey...while the GM is most excited about a complication from the possible A Lover In Every Port move but is playing Dungeon World because it lets them "play to find out what happens").

However, everyone can agree:

1) If whomever is playing The Dashing Hero in the group decides that they've been to Blacksalt Flats before, that triggers the move above and we have to find out what happens.

2) Then they can agree that if The Dashing Hero player rolls a 6 or less that the GM is obliged to create some sort of significant, "romantic misadventure" problem for them that either manifests right now or they're about to be "put on notice" that something thematically relevant is looming and must be dealt with (meaning it follows the GM Move format). So there is no opting out of this content generation procedure by any participant. We're all beholden to the system's mandate, agenda, and our particular roles that will keep precipitate play snowballing with dangerous adventure where we all get to play to find out what happens.

---

Thoughts?

 

[Fenris-77]

My usage of monolithic there was pointed at the way participants in discussions like this one tend to refer to 'player' agency, for example, as if all the players are identical or identically aligned, or that 'players' somehow defines one side of a binary opposition (GM/Players). My contention is very much your first example - that there will always be multiple and competing interests from the participants as to the development of the gamestate. Exactly how those multiple and potentially competing interests get resolved has an enormous range of possibilities depending on system, table contract, and the individuals involved. My personal preference is to play games where as much as possible can be offloaded onto system, both by rules design, and by mutual accord among the individuals.

I don't have any issues with your example, and I agree with both points one and two.

 

[Lanefan]

More recently, when running a prepared adventure for 5E (and likely my last time doing so) I totally narrated the results of a path that the PCs had set upon. ... There is one part of the Tomb that is actually an extradimensional testing ground for the traps. Almost a "beta" version of the tomb. Kind of an interesting concept, I thought.

But I don't know if it was an interesting concept for play. My players wandered into the beta version but with no understanding of what it was. The book suggests that it is an exact duplicate of the Tomb, except with no inhabitants. I realized that this was going to cause more frustration than fun as they tried to (a)figure this out, (b)put this knowledge to meaningful use, and (c)require me to track positions of the party across two identical dungeons, and what had been uncovered in which location, and what had not.

So when this all dawned on me, I simply narrated "You realize that you've wandered into a demiplane that is a duplicate of the tomb, likely a testing ground for the traps and hazards Acererak has used" and called it a day.

Yeah, given this info I'd call this Force.

Unfortunately, there'll now be no way of knowing whether it was justified or not, in that you were kinda guessing how your players would react to the bits you skipped (unless there's more you haven't said). Further, you admit to having your own bias in point c), in not looking forward to the work you'd have to do.

It's possible your players might have enjoyed the sub-dungeon, for all I know.

I don't know if this counts as nullifying their decision, but I certainly altered the outcome to be different than it would have if we played it out as the book suggested.

You also altered the course of play in that whatever resources they'd have used in the sub-dungeon didn't get used, whatever knowledge and-or treasure they might have gained there they didn't get, and so forth.

 

[Lanefan]

Can you clarify the usage of "monolithic" in the first sentence here, please?

Are you using this to say "at any given moment of play, there will be competing interests among the participants as to how the gamestate will progress from here to there?"

If so, I completely agree with that (and I damn sure hope so...play would be unbelievably static without that!).

However, I wonder if you're also saying something else alongside that (and you can correct me if I'm wrong):

1) Because of these competing micro-interests there can't be table consensus on macro issues (most importantly to this discussion "how authority is distributed and how to resolve the way gamestate a evolves to gamestate b).

Macro interests are nothing more than accumulated micro-interests (or flipped around, lots of micro-interests add up to macro-interests).

Before play begins there can be consensus on all sorts of meta-issues and interests, but once play gets going and the characters start doing their thing then progress from here to there is the same thing as progress from gamestate a to gamestate b, only on a different scale.

2) Because of the premise of (1), the big macro questions cannot be offloaded onto system, but rather must be either (a) handled by a "lead participant" (GM-type) or (b) achieved via consensus-building on a case-by-case basis.

Or c) left as open disagreements, resulting in a roleplayed split of the party as two groups go off to do two things.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yeah, given this info I'd call this Force.

Unfortunately, there'll now be no way of knowing whether it was justified or not, in that you were kinda guessing how your players would react to the bits you skipped (unless there's more you haven't said). Further, you admit to having your own bias in point c), in not looking forward to the work you'd have to do.

It's possible your players might have enjoyed the sub-dungeon, for all I know.

You also altered the course of play in that whatever resources they'd have used in the sub-dungeon didn't get used, whatever knowledge and-or treasure they might have gained there they didn't get, and so forth.

This is all accurate, except that I know it was justified!

I realized the problem when two party members went down the looping hallway that led to the demiplane, and I realized there’d now be two groups and it would all be a nightmare.

If I had to do it all again, the only thing I’d do different is not run a pre-written adventure!

 

[Lanefan]

This is all accurate, except that I know it was justified!

I realized the problem when two party members went down the looping hallway that led to the demiplane, and I realized there’d now be two groups and it would all be a nightmare.

Different strokes, I guess: what you call a DM nightmare I'd see as a DM challenge, to see if I could pull it off.

If I had to do it all again, the only thing I’d do different is not run a pre-written adventure!

Stuff like this can just as easily happen in a homebrew adventure...all it needs is the party to a) disagree over which way to go next, b) dig in their heels, and then c) split up.....

 

[pemerton]

If I had to summarise this rather crudely, player rolls for a desired location (presumably to learn more about/find Evard) which becomes true in the fiction. DM introduces combat encounter at new location. Search ensues (unknown if successful or failure), which results in DM introducing content. I'm not convinced, from this example, that this idea wasn't prethought by the DM - whether it was Evard or someone else doesn't matter since all they needed to be established was that your mother's father was a demon summoner - that is it.

Evard appeared in the fiction because I (playing my character's offsider) successfully conjectured about his tower being nearby (the offsider has a Belief that I'm not going to finish my career with no spellbooks and an empty purse!). But for that, I don't think there would have been a demon summoner.

There's little doubt that the GM was going to do something with my PC's family - I have two Relationships, with my offsider and my mother, and the Belief that Harm and infamy will befall Auxol [my family's estate, fallen on hard times] no more! So it would be remiss of him not to apply pressure there.

But what form it was going to take - it seems to me far more likely that that was decided either on the spot, or he came up with an idea between sessions - after we had got to Evard's tower but before we looked around it.

In any event, it's not GM force. GM force isn't a synonym for GM exercising authority to introduce content. In most more-or-less traditional RPGs (of which BW is one) the GM has an obligation to introduce content all the time. (In a system like Apocalypse World that's practically all that the GM does; in BW the GM also has to declare actions and roll dice for NPCs/creatures.)

@Manbearcat has charcterised GM force as 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. The example of play I've described doesn't involve any "manipulation of the gamestate", covert or otherwise, that nullifies or modifies player inpute - there's GM narration of consequences that respond to actions declared by me for my character(s, if you include the offsider) and, as per the rules of the game, pay attention to PC Beliefs, Relationships etc.

How does the unhappy truth change your character mechanically?

At this point it doesn't change my PC sheet. It changes my character's place in the fiction, and that might in due course change things on my sheet (eg I have the authority to change my character's Beliefs; Relationships can be lost as a consequence of failed action resolution if that would make sense in the fiction). This is not too different from the NIghcrawler arc that I described upthread - the mechanics of action resolution produce the arc; the arc creates a context where it makes sense for the player, given the situation, to change the character (in that case, one of Nightcrawler's Distinctions was changed - I think Devout Catholic became something like The Devil Within).

Given the rules that govern a Burning Wheel GM, the unhappy truth also works in much the same way that a "soft move" does in a PbtA game: it's the GM's job to build on it and see how it snowballs. As a player I have strong incentives to engage with it, because engaging my Beliefs (which doesn't necessarily mean sticking to them or pursuing them - it might mean dramatically changing or abandoning them), which in the fiction now means engaging this unwelcome truth, is how I earn the Fate and Persona points I need if my PC is going to succeed at challenging checks.

To go back to the issue of GM pre-scripting - as a Burning Wheel GM, there's no need. GM force as @Manbearcat characterises it - which I would tend to call "illusionism" - was a technique developed primarily to deliver story in spite of the mechanics/system because the latter, being essentially wargame/exploration rules, wouldn't do it on their own. Burning Wheel has some rules that resemble wargame rules (eg its combat minigames). But it has crucial rules that don't resemble wargame rules - for instance, PC build rules that contain elements like Beliefs and Relationships; and GM-directing rules around how to set up situations and narrate consequences having regard to, and putting pressure, on those things. (Ie no neutral refereeing!)

Force would just be a waste of everyone's time.