"Illusionism" and "GM force" in RPGing

[Ovinomancer]

I think I already posted that, to me, the dungeon example is like Gygax's secret door example except less likely to be illusionistic (because as @FrogReaver presents it there is no pretend/ignored check). (EDIT: apparently I didn't actually post that post - see further below).

Upthread I said of the secret door example:

​

I haven't changed my mind on that since posting it. The GM making something salient in this way is a type of guiding but (as I elaborate upon below) is barely so.

The dungeon parallel to wandering monsters chasing the PCs through the secret door would be the (first?) DL module where the dragon armies chase the PCs to Pax Tharsis (sp? right name?). That is force, and more than barely so. Depending on context and details it may or not be illusionism.

I say more than barely so because it is clear manipulation, with the intention of driving particular action declarations ("We go this way"). I will leave it up to @Manbearcat to explain how it counts as force under his description of that phenomenon (I'm pretty confident that he will characterise it as force).

That's not what is intended. Force comes in degrees, both for literal physical forces and more metaphoric/analogous GM decision-making forces.

When I say barely force I mean that the degree of guidance or manipulation is very small. 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. 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 don't think this is the right analysis of what Gygax describes.

Wandering monsters aren't an element of action resolution. They're what @Manbearcat has called a "clock", which is (as best I know) a piece of PbtA terminology.

In Gygax's D&D the function of the clock is to punish poor decision-making (ie unskilled play) - wasting time or making noise - by extra pointless encounters which either suck rations or treasure or spells to avoid, or suck hit points and/or spells to defeat. If the players play well and don't dither, and the passage of time is purely due to their efficient travel from the dungeon entrance to the part of the dungeon they have prepared to tackle next (and this is exactly the scenario that Gygax describes on p 9 of his DMG) then the clock isn't doing its job if the party gets hit unrelentingly by wandering monsters. That becomes arbitrary punishment.

In Apocalypse World, Vincent Baker says the following about managing clocks (p 143):

Countdown clocks are both descriptive and prescriptive. Descriptive: when something you’ve listed happens, advance the clock to that point. Prescriptive: when you advance the clock otherwise, it causes the things you’ve listed. Furthermore, countdown clocks can be derailed: when something happens that changes circumstances so that the countdown no longer makes sense, just scribble it out.​

Gygax's advice about wandering monsters is about keeping the descriptive and prescriptive aspects of the "clock" in synch. I don't think it's presented as clearly - either in the core mechanic or in this advice around it - as Baker does for AW, but I think we can still make reasonable sense of what Gygax is saying

Now if Gygax had a "say 'yes'" element to his game, he wouldn't need this workaround for his wandering monster rules, because you wouldn't start rolling for them until the PCs have gone through the already-mapped-and-explored bits of the dungeon to the new bit they want to check out. But he doesn't (and to some extent didn't want to - see @Manbearcat's comments about the secondary, simulationst role of wandering monsters as dungeon ecology).

This goes to @Manbearcat's point about making the game better - sure, that's good advice, but sometimes the product just needs to be shipped! So we get 4e's skill challenge rules which need a few extra bells-and-whistles to really work (some are in the DMG2, some in the Rules Compendium). We get the MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic Doom Pool, which is pacing, GM resource for action resolution, and the opposition for otherwise unopposed checks (including most healing/recovery actions) all in one, and the wonkiness that can produce which produces the advice that the GM should sometimes not optimise his/her doom pool rolls.

Done in accordance with the relevant principles and these workarounds won't stop being clunky, but I don't think they count as force - they're not manipulating or guiding towards a predetermined outcome.

EDIT: Here's the post I wrote earlier about the dungeon example - apparently it didn't go live:

This seems very similar to Gygax's example of the secret door that I posted and commented on upthread.

If one takes the view that it's force (if so, it's very weak as the guidance/manipulation is pretty minimal) in the case you mention it's not illusionism: the players know exactly what the GM is doing! (Gygax's example may be illusionism if the players don't realise that the detect-secret-doors-roll was toyed with by the GM.)

I'm not sure that your definition of Force is useful, and I think this example shows it. You've focused your definition on some long term goal -- the creation of a "choreographed novel" -- and that's fine, but that makes it only useful in the macro and blurs the lines between content introduction, as @FrogReaver presents, and actual direction of play. I think, applied fairly, it says nothing at all about the Gygax example* of choosing to ignore mechanically mandated content introduction. That's too small to be caught by the definition.

But, that's really the problem I have with it -- what counts as a "choreographed novel?" In this thread, you seem to be taking the tack that any presentation of material with an expectation that it will feature in play fits, but I think that's not a very good definition of "choreographed novel". It may fit the "choreographed" part, but not the "novel" part. The novel part says, to me, that the story and outcomes are authored. If I introduce a dungeon, and even make that the only option for play, I may have choreographed play into that dungeon, but if I let that dungeon play out as per the player inputs, and don't put my thumb on the scale for outcomes, then there's no way that's authored.

So, if we can separate "choreographed" from "novel" in the definition, and apply the terms independently to evaluate play, does this severing save the construction? I'd say no, because there's no clear line between how much authoring rises to the level of "novel." If I ignore a wandering monster check that's mechanically required by the rules, but only occasionally, does this level of authoring no encounter rise to the level of "novel?" I think you answer this above with no, or barely. That's fair. But, how many things do I need to author like this to achieve a substantial level? Unclear, and, ultimately, subjective. This makes the definition subjective, and, alongside already having to consider both choreography and authorship, I think not a very useful heuristic for judging play except at the "pornography" level, which is "I know it when I see it." At that point, as another poster presented, it's not any different from just saying "railroading."

I think a definition, like @Manbearcat's, that evaluates moments in play is more useful. We can still consider if such use is good or not, but it clearly categorizes the moment in play as Force or not Force. We can still even reach your heuristic as sustained Force for the purpose of creating the GM's preferred story outcomes, rather than the in the moment resolution.

* As an aside, I don't understand why you've made the argument that the Gygax wandering monster example may be exempt from consideration of Force because it's not part of an action resolution. Firstly, because your definition makes no differentiation between action resolution and any other facet of the game, merely alluding to guidance, but also because I do see the wandering monster check as part of resolution, at a larger scale than an individual action. Wandering monster checks mechanically occur when the play has passed a trigger point, which only occurs according to player input -- ie, if they take to long, they get a wandering monster check. If the party takes too long, but you forgo a check because it seems unfair to you in the moment due to the party condition, then you're ignoring the mechanical resolution of a player input of taking too long. I don't see how you sever wandering monster checks at set trigger points from the input of the players choosing to cross that trigger point through play.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

I would love to examine the alternate definition. Is the above the “official
“ definition?

 

[Ovinomancer]

I would love to examine the alternate definition. Is the above the “official
“ definition?

I know of no "offical" definition. Who would be the authority? I prefer @Manbearcat's recent formulation, as it succinctly sums up my understanding of Force:

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.

 

[chaochou]

I think for this discussion to continue to develop it needs to:

* Accept the @Manbearcat definition of force as being the dictation of outcomes by the GM

* Break the content of play down into smaller parts - in previous analysis setting, content, plot and situation have been used to illustrate that authority is not an all or nothing deal. Different elements can be under the control of different people, or shared, in various combinations without functional roleplaying breaking down.

In this sense a dungeon can be created and populated without need to reference force. That is simply the GM-ing using agreed setting authority.

 

[Fenris-77]

@chaochou - That definition of force is pretty manifestly not simply equivalent to the dictation of outcomes by the GM (I think you're hanging a lot of emphasis on 'dictation' there). Part of the GM role is to adjudicate (dictate, to some extent) outcomes in that liminal recursive space where the game system and the diagetic frame inform each other. Force, here, is the manipulation of that adjudication for a particular GM determined goal. The extent to which that force is a negative has to do with the social contract of the table and the agreed upon division of authority between the players. I think it's more important that the 'force' breaks the table contract than anything to do with the particular action in question.

I think we actually mostly agree here actually, but I think you need to extend the definition of both force and authority outside the notion of 'setting'. I would agree that authority isn't all or nothing - the authority at a table can be divided in many different ways, and pretty obviously without roleplaying breaking down.

 

[pemerton]

barely force is still force.

<snip>

the smallest amount of guidance possible is still guidance.

Yes. I think I said these things also. I'm not sure what you take the point of controversy to be.

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.

I think it's widely - not universally - accepted that PC death, and even moreso TPK, is a loss condition in D&D play. (Which is where the example of the dragon armies comes from - it's in a DL module.)

The fact that the players can thwart the attempt at manipulation by sucking up a loss (and presumably giving up on the module?) doesn't show that there was no attempt at manipulation. It just shows it failed!

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.

I don't really agree with this, or at least with what all that it seems to imply.

For instance, the GM doesn't have to get the PCs into inteesting situations. The GM can begin with a situation that is interesting.

Eg I started my Burning Wheel game with the PCs in a bazaar, giving one of them a chance to act on his Belief that he will find useful magical artefacts to free his brother form possession by a balrog, and the other the chance to act on a Belief about getting money.) The PCs can have "kickers" - ie player-authored interesting situations that provide the starting point for play.

In my 4e D&D Dark Sun game we used kickers - the barbarian gladiator started in the arena about to behead his opponent when the crowd all looked away as the cry rang out that "The tyrant's dead"; the Veiled Alliance bard/wizard started in the stands, where the contact he was about to meet had just fallen down dead, apparently assassinated.

In my two Cortex+ Heroic Fantasy games (one Vikings, one LotR), the players - after choosing their PCs from the pregens I provided - established what their objectives were that gave them reasons to set out on a journey, and then I built on that.

And I don't generally find that players object to the GM framing interesting situations either, as long as they follow from the fiction and respect player choices (both in PC build and prior action resolution). In my main 4e game the fighter PC failed a check in a skill challenge where the PCs were interacting with some witches. The player had indicated some interest in taking the Pit Fighter paragon path, and the wtitches were predicting his PC's future in respect of this, and as the consequence of failure I narrated the pulling of a cord and the resultant dropping of the PC into a pit, where he had to fight giant spiders. The existence of spiders in the witches' ruined manor had already been foreshadowed; being a pit fighter was the player's own content-introduction!; there was no objection to the way it unfolded - it was a consequecne of failure that followed from the fiction.

RPGing with interesting situations is possible without guidance or manipulation towards fore-ordained results in the fiction; and players can be enjoy RPGing without GM illusionism.

 

[pemerton]

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

This is not true.

To recap from the OP, here is how I have characterised GM force, using the Traveller Book as my canonical source: gentle guidance or manipulation, by the GM, to a fore-ordained goal.

Deliberately narrating that the PCs in a dungeon find a secret door - an example canvassed by Gygax in his DMG - may be force in this sense, though barely so: by making the secret door salient the GM gently guides the PCs to make a particular choice, of going to a particular placer in the dungeon.

Here is a passage from the Burning Wheel revised rulebook, p 109:

If one of your [PC's] relationships is your wife in the village, the GM is supposed to use this to create situations in play. If you're hunting a vampire, of course it's your wife who is his victim! Suddenly, you're swept up in a plot of terror and intrigue.​

That's not neutral GMing, but it is not force. There is no guidance or manipulation by the GM to a fore-ordained goal. It's about framing, not outcomes/resolution.

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.

Until you say something about what A, B and C are, this is too abstract to say much about.

But, in the abstract, this looks like it will require force. If the players, when their PCs are framed into situation A, are not guided or manipulated to a fore-ordained goal, then what guarantee is there that situation B will follow from the established fiction?

 

[pemerton]

Here is @Manbearcat's characterisation of force:

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. ​

Gygax's suggestion to suspend wandering monster rolls for a party that has already suffered wandering monsters while moving through explored parts of the dungeon to the new bit they want to explore, and are doing so in a skilled way, is not force in this sense. No player input is nullified or modified. No GM-envisioned narrative is being formed or maintained.

I think that is the correct analytic outcome.

The well-known device in the first DL module, which uses the advance of the dragon armies to force the players to have their PCs move to Xak Tsaroth (I finally looked it up), in my view is force. It is guiding and manipulating to a fore-ordained outcome. But I don't see that it falls under Manbearcat's characterisation: there is the maintaining and forming of a GM-envisioned narrative; but I don't see how player input is being nullified or modified.

 

[prabe]

Here is @Manbearcat's characterisation of force:

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. ​

[snip]

The well-known device in the first DL module, which uses the advance of the dragon armies to force the players to have their PCs move to Xak Tsaroth (I finally looked it up), in my view is force. It is guiding and manipulating to a fore-ordained outcome. But I don't see that it falls under Manbearcat's characterisation: there is the maintaining and forming of a GM-envisioned narrative; but I don't see how player input is being nullified or modified.

So, do we need a different term for what the writers of that module were doing, and GM Force?

 

[pemerton]

So, do we need a different term for what the writers of that module were doing, and GM Force?

Not in my view. I think the notion of GM guidance and/or manipulation to a fore-ordained goal does the job.

This overlaps with @Manbearcat's characterisation in part: fore-ordained goal is roughly synonymous with GM-envisioned narrative.

But it differs from @Manbeacat's characterisation in part: it uses a general notion of guidance and/or manipulation without further stipulating that this must nullify or modify player input.

Contra @Ovinomancer, this difference does not pertain to moments vs arcs of play: guidance to a fore-ordained outcome can be attributed to a particular moment of play (like the Gygax secret door example) just as much as manipulation of the gamestate to establish or maintain a GM-envisioned narrative. Which is no surprise, given the rough synonymy of the italicised phrases.

The difference is that modifying or nullifying player input happens at a certain point of the action resolution process, namely, downstream from the player input in question. Whereas guiding or manipulating towards a goal can occur upstream of player input into action resolution, that is, in the process of framing. Which is what is happening in the DL case (strong manipulation) and the secret door case (barest of guidance).

I think this is putting me slightly at odds with @chaochou above, which always worries me because he's a better analyst of RPGing than I am! In the DL example I believe that the GM is exercising authority that the rulebooks and module confer - the GM has authority to frame those encounters. I also think that the GM is exercising force, because s/he is manipulating the trajectory of play towards a fore-ordained goal.

In the Gygax wandering monster case, I think - for the reasons I've given - no force is being exercised (and as I posted not far upthread I think my characterisation and @Manbearcat's characterisation produce the same conclusion in this respect). But the GM is pushing the limits of authority, because suspending what presents itself as a mandated procedure by appeal to a much more vaguely and waffly-worded permission to wield overwhelming power. But I think that's mostly because Gygax wasn't a terribly good writer of rules. I think that the wanderming monster system could be rewritten more clearly (maybe using the Apocalpyse World presentation of clocks as a starting point) to both state its purpose (it's about punishing bad play that wastes time and creates noise, with a simulationist side-effect of presenting dungeon ecology) and then explain why, if that purpose is not being served due to unlikely rolls vs a group playing skillfully, the clock can be temporarily suspended. That would make it clearer that it's not force and also make it clearer how the GM is meant to do it without breaking the rules.

Of course this requires a GM to exercise judgement. But that's an unremarkable feature of a traditional RPG and not especially related to the notion of force.