"Illusionism" and "GM force" in RPGing

[Gorgon Zee]

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]

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]

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.​

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]

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]

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]

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]

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, We 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]

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]

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]

But barely force is still force.



But the smallest amount of guidance possible is still guidance.



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.

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.