"Illusionism" and "GM force" in RPGing

[pemerton]

To add something to my reply just upthread to @prabe, which also to some extent builds on @chaochou's remark that "a dungeon can be created and populated without need to reference force":

My own opinion, which is based on my own experience as GM and player, and on reading modules and reports of play over the years, is that framing is one of the most important GM skills.

Framing needs to invite the players to engage the situation. Otherwise the game becomes boring and pointless. I've experienced this as a player, sometimes been guilty of it as a GM, and heard many reports of it.

But framing which guides or manipulates towards a fore-ordained goal - like the dragon armies, and most modules I know from the 2nd ed and 3E D&D eras - tends towards suckitude, because it makes play pointless in a different way: the players have nothing to contribute. (Even their dice rolls don't matter, because the GM has to ignore or fudge or negate those outcomes to make sure the fore-ordained goal is achieved.)

Between those two pitfalls is a lot of room for manoeuvre, but I think it requires some thought and some deftness to do it well. I've been GMed by people who are pretty experienced RPGers but haven't been able to do it.

 

[Manbearcat]

@pemerton

At some point this evening I'm going to try to read all of these mentions and try to analyze where we might be (if we are) at odds.

Here is what I think needs analyzed (and what I'll try to do):

What does player input mean in each of these varying situations?

Here is the thing. A player's input correlates to the game's premise. Further, a GM's role is going to correlate to the nature of that input. Put another way:

Basic D&D tests a player's ability to (a) deploy guile, (b) manage strategic resources over the course of a delve (loadout of various forms, HPs, etc), and (c) engage skillfully with tactical decision-points (which includes intra-party integration/force-multiplication). A GM's role is, effectively, to create a complex, themed obstacle course that integrates the ruleset, that tests (a), (b), and (c), and then referee the collision of the party and the obstacle course from a position of neutrality.

Both sides of the equation are a different arrangement in, say, Dogs in the Vineyard.

I mean 4e, while it certainly has some overlap, is also very different from Basic (in part because character theme and intent-based action resolution mediation is a HUGE part of play for both players and GM).

---

I think what I'll end up doing tonight is taking a singular moment of resolution and examining what player input means in that moment and how force can nullify it.

 

[prabe]

@pemerton Thanks for the answers. Using what I've called an "instigating event" has seemed more like framing than force to me, and I'm pleased to see my intuition at least has some support.

 

[Nagol]

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.

The GM-narrative being formed is "the PCs won't be forced to retreat or waste resources on yet another random encounter because they need them to be at all successful going forward."

Although I'm not promoting yet another definition, the definition I typically use for GM force is when the GM substitutes fiat for expected table-accepted mechanics. So if a DM decides to substitute "no encounter" for a roll when the assigned mechanics would roll, he is using force. If the GM is drawing a map by fiat, a castle can be placed without force, but if the GM assigns a castle during a hex-crawl as opposed to rolling on the assigned tables, he is using force. If the GM normally assigns room contents by fiat, no force is applied though if he changes contents on the fly when that isn't the expected behaviour , he is using force. The GM is forcibly altering the course away from the 'natural' events of using the expected mechanics.

This tends to become most visible to the players when their declarations and choices are undercut, obviously.

Force is just a technique otherwise. Sometimes a DM thinks it is called for to reward good play, cancel terrible luck, or provide a 'narratively better' situation. Heck, sometimes the entire table thinks it is called for. It only becomes a problematic technique when there is disagreement as to it use.

 

[pemerton]

Here is what I think needs analyzed (and what I'll try to do):

What does player input mean in each of these varying situations?

That's the point on which I've identified a difference of characterisation. Under a different analysis from mine, you might establish an extensional equivalence of the two (non-synonymous) characterisations.

Basic D&D tests a player's ability to (a) deploy guile, (b) manage strategic resources over the course of a delve (loadout of various forms, HPs, etc), and (c) engage skillfully with tactical decision-points (which includes intra-party integration/force-multiplication). A GM's role is, effectively, to create a complex, themed obstacle course that integrates the ruleset, that tests (a), (b), and (c), and then referee the collision of the party and the obstacle course from a position of neutrality.

When what you say here is brought into contact with Gygax's discussion of wandering monsters, one thing is missing - the "megadungeon". (I don't know Torchbearer and so can't comment; but in Luke Crane's Moldvay play that led to it I think he played only modules, not "megadungeons.)

In the traditional (mega)dungeon, which is what Gygax talks about in his PHB under Successful Adventures, and is also what he is referring to on p 9 of his DMG, the PCs have to move through "cleaned"/explored bits of the dungeon to get to the new bits that they are exploring. This movement is inevitable, even for the most skilled players; and it therefore generates wandering monster rolls. What Gygax is noticing is that even a very skill group of players who have to move through a fair bit of dungeon can get unlucky on those rolls and hence get hosed by wanderers and never actually get to deploy or show off their skill.

It's essentially a problem for framing: the fictional conceits combined with the "clock" process mean that every group, regardless of skill of play, has a random chance of suffering a hosing. In principle the best way to deal with this would be to fix the clocks (simply changing probabilities won't help, because the chance of hosing will still always be there). But that's tricky, especially given the conceits of the fiction (a well-known somewhat analogous thing is the "amber mist" at the end of each session of X2, which allows the PCs to recuperate without actually leaving the dungeon - and it's a pretty flagrant device!).

 

[Manbearcat]

The GM-narrative being formed is "the PCs won't be forced to retreat or waste resources on yet another random encounter because they need them to be at all successful going forward."

<snip>

So if a DM decides to substitute "no encounter" for a roll when the assigned mechanics would roll, he is using force.

This is where I come out on this (and expressed as much above) when the game specifically features a particular type of STRATEGIC DECISION-MAKING as fundamental to the play agenda. This is overwhelmingly a feature of certain challenge-based games.

This is also why I created that model of the potential impacts of Force in that either thread (only 4 points of Force in 100 moments of play). You have the 1st order impacts of Force (at say, moment 12), but then you have their downstream effects and how those impact/amplify/mitigate subsequent moments of play.

This is how a GM can turn a "neutrally adjudicated obstacle course whereby the collision of it and player's input will test x, y, z" into something of a "choreographed novel" (to use the very apt description that @pemerton has put forth in this thread). Ignore Wandering Monster Roll > modify location of thing despite player input > fudge combat dice result > change Monster Reaction.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

An argument could be made - and hey, I might as well make it, just for fun - that the definition of Force could easily be expanded beyond both the goal and GM aspect and instead have it read gentle guidance or manipulation, by the GM or a player, to a fore-ordained run of play.

Yes I know the thread's specifically talking about GM Force, but allow me to diverge a bit, below...

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.

Maybe. Maybe not. The secret door is what it is; if the players/PCs still have an open and unfettered choice as to whether to go through it once found then where's the Force? The outcome isn't preordained.

Whether the door is salient or not might not be known info to the players and thus doesn't enter into their decision-making beyond "maybe".

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.

You're right it's not neutral, but it's still Force in a way; only this time it's being exerted on the GM rather than by the GM.

Just like D&D tends to hand the DM Force to use as a tool in the box, so here does BW seem to hand players some Force to use on the GM in how they want to shape the run of play.

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?

It might not, immediately.

Time for some names.

Let's say that going in as GM I've decided that somehow during this campaign I'm going to find a way to run B7 Rahasia, L1 Bone Hill, and JG's Dark Tower - preferably in that order due to level suitability - because I happen to think they're all excellent adventures and because I happen to know none of these players have been through any of them before. There'll be other adventures too, of course, but somewhere in this campaign those three are going to appear.

Pretty much no matter what background-goals-interests the players have for their PCs, chances are very high I can find something in each of those modules that'll relate somehow - and so we might well end up exerting Force on each other: they through forcing me to play to their goals etc. and me through using those goals to get them into those adventures.

And if any of the players have anything related to a PC's ancestry as a goal or interest, I'm gold. The Rahib in Rahasia could be a Necromancer with info leading to the whereabouts of an ancestor who is in fact the chained-up skeleton in Bone Hill, who in turn informs the party she was put there by the lich in Dark Tower. (and I made that up while typing it, so stringin' these things together can't be that hard!)

Is this bad? I don't think so.

 

[Manbearcat]

In the traditional (mega)dungeon, which is what Gygax talks about in his PHB under Successful Adventures, and is also what he is referring to on p 9 of his DMG, the PCs have to move through "cleaned"/explored bits of the dungeon to get to the new bits that they are exploring. This movement is inevitable, even for the most skilled players; and it therefore generates wandering monster rolls. What Gygax is noticing is that even a very skill group of players who have to move through a fair bit of dungeon can get unlucky on those rolls and hence get hosed by wanderers and never actually get to deploy or show off their skill.

It's essentially a problem for framing: the fictional conceits combined with the "clock" process mean that every group, regardless of skill of play, has a random chance of suffering a hosing. In principle the best way to deal with this would be to fix the clocks (simply changing probabilities won't help, because the chance of hosing will still always be there). But that's tricky, especially given the conceits of the fiction (a well-known somewhat analogous thing is the "amber mist" at the end of each session of X2, which allows the PCs to recuperate without actually leaving the dungeon - and it's a pretty flagrant device!).

This is very interesting and I think modern game design has something to say about this; Gloomhaven

Gloomhaven integrated this exact aspect of play into its tuning.

Gygax did not for megadungeons, so his answer is the provision "The Wandering Monster Clock doesn't get checked under condition y." That, to me, doesn't look like Force. However, there does become a problem of a sort of "incoherency creep" when this provision isn't player-facing and explicit. Players not realizing that this provision isn't active might be spending strategic resources (Invisibility, Silence, or just time/Exploration Turns etc) to ensure that a Wandering Monster encounter doesn't occur, or doesn't occur on terms that are problematic for them...when the consequences of the Wandering Monster Clock aren't even in play!

While that isn't Force...that is definitely a major problem with the ruleset.

Now, in the other case (ignoring Wandering Monsters when they're "online"), I can't see an argument for that not being Force. While it may not be nullifying an active action declaration, its nullifying/modifying the meaning/impact of past and future action declarations by players as they manage strategic resources (including time/Exploration Turns)!

 

[Nagol]

This is where I come out on this (and expressed as much above) when the game specifically features a particular type of STRATEGIC DECISION-MAKING as fundamental to the play agenda. This is overwhelmingly a feature of certain challenge-based games.

This is also why I created that model of the potential impacts of Force in that either thread (only 4 points of Force in 100 moments of play). You have the 1st order impacts of Force (at say, moment 12), but then you have their downstream effects and how those impact/amplify/mitigate subsequent moments of play.

This is how a GM can turn a "neutrally adjudicated obstacle course whereby the collision of it and player's input will test x, y, z" into something of a "choreographed novel" (to use the very apt description that @pemerton has put forth in this thread). Ignore Wandering Monster Roll > modify location of thing despite player input > fudge combat dice result > change Monster Reaction.

Yeah, some games are more prone to force use. It's really hard to use force as I define it in Amber, for example. The primary table-expected mechanic is GM fiat.

The middle of the pack would be 'discover through play' games where little is prepped and force application (as we've discussed to death elsewhere) can generally affect player consequence and scene framing.

Using a game with sites that have items and creatures pre-placed and 'naturalistic' modeling of movement (i.e. wandering monsters) comes with many opportunities and temptations to apply force. Even if it is just 'let's get this encounter done already, I need to go home."

The absolute most prone to force use though are genre emulators, especially 'early craft' ones where the GM was still assigned the bulk of the accountability to make sessions/adventures feel like the genre being emulated: James Bond, Vampire, action movies games, and the like. Those games tend to ask the GM to apply force because the mechanics don't match expected play (or can diverge quickly through normal play).

 

[Nagol]

An argument could be made - and hey, I might as well make it, just for fun - that the definition of Force could easily be expanded beyond both the goal and GM aspect and instead have it read gentle guidance or manipulation, by the GM or a player, to a fore-ordained run of play.

Yes I know the thread's specifically talking about GM Force, but allow me to diverge a bit, below...

Maybe. Maybe not. The secret door is what it is; if the players/PCs still have an open and unfettered choice as to whether to go through it once found then where's the Force? The outcome isn't preordained.

Whether the door is salient or not might not be known info to the players and thus doesn't enter into their decision-making beyond "maybe".

You're right it's not neutral, but it's still Force in a way; only this time it's being exerted on the GM rather than by the GM.

Just like D&D tends to hand the DM Force to use as a tool in the box, so here does BW seem to hand players some Force to use on the GM in how they want to shape the run of play.

It might not, immediately.

Time for some names.

Let's say that going in as GM I've decided that somehow during this campaign I'm going to find a way to run B7 Rahasia, L1 Bone Hill, and JG's Dark Tower - preferably in that order due to level suitability - because I happen to think they're all excellent adventures and because I happen to know none of these players have been through any of them before. There'll be other adventures too, of course, but somewhere in this campaign those three are going to appear.

Pretty much no matter what background-goals-interests the players have for their PCs, chances are very high I can find something in each of those modules that'll relate somehow - and so we might well end up exerting Force on each other: they through forcing me to play to their goals etc. and me through using those goals to get them into those adventures.

And if any of the players have anything related to a PC's ancestry as a goal or interest, I'm gold. The Rahib in Rahasia could be a Necromancer with info leading to the whereabouts of an ancestor who is in fact the chained-up skeleton in Bone Hill, who in turn informs the party she was put there by the lich in Dark Tower. (and I made that up while typing it, so stringin' these things together can't be that hard!)

Is this bad? I don't think so.

I'd suggest using the wife in Burning Wheel isn't force so much as a pre-negotiated requirement. Much like Hero Games' disadvantage Dependent NPC. When defined and accepted by the GM, a contract is formed that this aspect will come into dramatic use in the game, somehow (Hero goes one step further and presents the general commonality of occurrence). Both games effectively offer some basic PC-adjacent world-building tools to the players signaling what the players want to get involved in, subject to the GM's approval.