"Illusionism" and "GM force" in RPGing

[Ovinomancer]

Maybe? When provided a definition I tend to examine it on it's own merits - not necessarily what is intended by the author of said definition - possibly because I'm more of a math person - i'm sure the natural thing for an English person is to try to understand intention and fill in the missing gaps.



If I was going to define GM forcing I would define it as:

"The GM unfairly manipulating the players via in-fiction actions so that they have their characters do something in-fiction he desires them to do."

I think the basic concept missing from most of the definitions is the idea of unfairness - even though it's been mentioned in few posts.

No good, makes a judgement call -- Force is a Bad Thing(tm). This isn't a useful definition of a game technique, but a pejorative. Also, define "fairly."

 

[FrogReaver]

No good, makes a judgement call -- Force is a Bad Thing(tm). This isn't a useful definition of a game technique, but a pejorative. Also, define "fairly."

That's my point - fairly is in fact present in every definition that's being discussed - it's just not explicitly stated. That's why forcing isn't just a game technique.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The GM can have his own desires about how he wants the situation to play out and still be fair in how he has it play out. It seems very plausible that a traumatized starving dog runs away from the players, that trying to have it take food from your hand won't work, and that approaching it would be viewed by it as a hostile act leaving it to respond in kind.

Traumatized starving dogs don't start friendly to anyone. Sounds like a misplaced expectation.



So no forcing here.



Seems to me like expecting a 12 to succeed in befriending the traumatized starving dog was a misplaced expectation.



Sounds like normal DM behavior of introducing new content.



Misplaced expectations. The dog should have been defensively hostile in that situation.



Depending upon the circumstances of saving the dog it may be an impact or not - since you didn't elaborate on how then this part cannot be judged.



Finally an example of forcing - profound unfairness (assuming dice fixing to that extent is frowned upon at that table - but under some tables even that wouldn't be viewed as unfair - and without that fundamental unfairness how can it be forcing?)



There is only 1 clear forcing move here. The rest of your case rests upon your description of the DM having a desire to keep a certain situation in play a little longer. But as previously noted - he can have that desire and still abjugate fairly.

I'm quoting the whole thing, but I really want to address your first sentence. Sure, a GM might have an idea of how they'd like a situation to play out (I'd say that's already put things in a Forcey place, but okay), but the issue is if they change adjudication or situations to make it so. This would then be the manipulation of the gamestate that's ignoring or modifying player inputs to achieve an outcome in line with GM preference.

I'm not a fan of @Manbearcat's example because the starting attitude of the dog should have been apparent to begin with. There's already a failure of framing which frustrates the PC's inputs -- they want to find and befriend the dog but the GM is hiding crucial information on that attempt. I'd say that this counts as a fourth instance of Force, that actually enables the next 2. Which, by the way, without the knowledge of the dog's starting attitude, the first instance in MBC's post isn't really Force -- the GM has a hostile dog, so the DC is going to be higher to handle the animal -- a 12 won't cut it. But, the GM should frame the situation and let the player know the difficulty of their task, at least in general terms, so this, I guess, is Force as presented.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Its a case where a GM vetos a player's input into the gamestate:fiction (which they purchased via PC build) in order to manufacture a block and force the players to engage the situation in an alternative way.

Not only that, but it also renders the player's choice of the criminal background largely meaningless. When this stuff comes up in play, it's like "hey you could have told me that you didn't like the criminal background ability, and I would have chosen a background whose ability you liked and which I could get to use."

I mean, background is a pretty big factor in character creation, and this takes away a big part of it for that character.

 

[Manbearcat]

@FrogReaver

That whole thing was made up (well, not made up...it was a Dungeon World game I ran that was transliterated to 5e). Just assume that (a) the dog shouldn't have been Hostile because of x, y, z (make something up that is intuitive at the table) and (b) assume the circumstances of the PCs saving the dog at the encampment before it fled were significantly impactful to the dog and that having a friendly face amidst a recent history of hardship would be sufficiently compelling for the dog (and that this is inferable from a players' perspective). Fill in the blanks as you see fit to get there.

Just figure out fiction where DC 10 is very reasonable for the Animal Handling check and Indifferent Starting Attitude for the dog is sensibly inferred by the players engaging with the fiction.

I'm not sure why you're defending an imaginary GM here?

 

[Ovinomancer]

That's my point - fairly is in fact present in every definition that's being discussed - it's just not explicitly stated. That's why forcing isn't just a game technique.

It's not the definition @Manbearcat presented, and it's not in my understanding of that definition. I can think of a number of fair uses of Force. The examples @pemerton posted in regards to waiving a wandering monster check or revealing a secret door for free are both examples of Force, but not unfair. I think if you use Force to, say, ameliorate a string of odd occurances using dice, that's not an unfair use.

Force isn't inherently bad. It's a tool that can be used, and one that's easily abused. I think we do a disservice by always presenting Force as a negative. Lots of games use Force and are very fun and enjoyed by their players.

 

[FrogReaver]

It's not the definition @Manbearcat presented, and it's not in my understanding of that definition. I can think of a number of fair uses of Force. The examples @pemerton posted in regards to waiving a wandering monster check or revealing a secret door for free are both examples of Force, but not unfair. I think if you use Force to, say, ameliorate a string of odd occurances using dice, that's not an unfair use.

The general consensus of this thread was that waving the wandering monster checks was "unfair". @pemerton and @Manbearcat were in agreement on that - unless I misunderstood their positions at that time.

Force isn't inherently bad. It's a tool that can be used, and one that's easily abused. I think we do a disservice by always presenting Force as a negative. Lots of games use Force and are very fun and enjoyed by their players.

I've still not seen a definition that allows for positive forcing that isn't so broad that nearly everything the DM does meets the definition. I think the only way to constrain force is to either look at unfairness or intent - which are either subjective, unknowable or both.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The general consensus of this thread was that waving the wandering monster checks was "unfair". @pemerton and @Manbearcat were in agreement on that - unless I misunderstood their positions at that time.

I didn't see @pemerton think it was unfair -- he seems to be in favor of it. I'm certainly in favor of the waiving, as describe. I, however disagree with @pemerton in that I think it's a clear example of Force while he characterized it as barely Force. I don't see much use in categorizing levels of Force -- it all does the same stuff and it's important to be aware you're using it, not justify this use because it's barely Force.

I can't say if @Manbearcat thinks it unfair.

I've still not seen a definition that allows for positive forcing that isn't so broad that nearly everything the DM does meets the definition. I think the only way to constrain force is to either look at unfairness or intent - which are either subjective, unknowable or both.

Again, the definition provided by @Manbearcat, when considered as I suggest -- in the moment -- allows for many "fair" uses of Force. I prefer this definition precisely because it describes an event but doesn't categorize it as good or bad. Adding a consideration of 'fairness' means that citing any given use of Force is also saying that it's bad play. I'm not interested in definitions that include badwrongfun because they're not useful to examine what happens in play, but instead to judge play.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm not interested in definitions that include badwrongfun because they're not useful to examine what happens in play, but instead to judge play.

And I don't think you are interested in definitions that are so overly broad they are useless as evidenced by your issues with pemerton's forcing definition.

I don't see what you are seeing in @Manbearcat's definition. I'll try to revisit it.

 

[FrogReaver]

Again, the definition provided by @Manbearcat, when considered as I suggest -- in the moment -- allows for many "fair" uses of Force. I prefer this definition precisely because it describes an event but doesn't categorize it as good or bad. Adding a consideration of 'fairness' means that citing any given use of Force is also saying that it's bad play. I'm not interested in definitions that include badwrongfun because they're not useful to examine what happens in play, but instead to judge play.

So take a step back and suppose for a moment that I'm right in general that there is no way to define forcing that can include "good" forcing without being overly broad. If that's the case then the only useful definition of forcing is the one based on fairness - wouldn't you agree?