Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[prabe]

Yeah, I would agree that there are different ways the GM can force things, and some are worse than others.

And I agree that prepping things ahead of time does not have to result in the GM forcing things. Just that it’s predisposed to do so.

Certainly it is more likely than with a no-prep GMing style, right?

I think it depends on how no-prep the GM is, and how willing the GM is to admit the story that emerges from play belongs to the PCs, not the GM or anything the GM owns. I can imagine a hypothetical GM running a hypothetical no-prep game where the story ended up being more about the NPCs or some other aspect of the world than about the PCs, where nothing the PCs did changed the direction of the story; I can even imagine it happening unintentionally, without malice or bad faith. I can also imagine a hypothetical GM having at least where the PCs are prepped to the door hinges and running so the story belonged to the PCs; this seems far more likely to be an intentional decision. I'll admit that both of those might be fringe cases--the former probably more than the latter, I think.

That said, there is definitely a temptation to use what you have prepped no matter what the PCs do, which kinda by definition doesn't exist if you have nothing prepped.

 

[Nagol]

Yeah, I would agree that there are different ways the GM can force things, and some are worse than others.

And I agree that prepping things ahead of time does not have to result in the GM forcing things. Just that it’s predisposed to do so.

Certainly it is more likely than with a no-prep GMing style, right?

Not really, GM force is more a marker of GM predisposition. I've had GMs run using strong illusionism, choice negation, and other forms of force entirely ad hoc as well as fully-prepped key-for-lock treasure, heavily keyed systems. Funny thing is, they are the same GMs.

 

[hawkeyefan]

That said, there is definitely a temptation to use what you have prepped no matter what the PCs do, which kinda by definition doesn't exist if you have nothing prepped.

This is what I was getting at, yes. I would agree that GM force is a possibility no matter what system or GM style is in place. But some systems/styles actively work to discourage it.

Not really, GM force is more a marker of GM predisposition. I've had GMs run using strong illusionism, choice negation, and other forms of force entirely ad hoc as well as fully-prepped key-for-lock treasure, heavily keyed systems. Funny thing is, they are the same GMs.

That may be. As I replied to @prabe above, the possibility is always there. But I do think that with some systems, a GM exercising force starts to move into bad faith, and in other systems it does not.

For instance, take some of the discussion from earlier in the thread. Some games allow the GM the ability to decide that a declared action for a PC is impossible to achieve. In such systems, it’s accepted that this is within the GM’s authority. Contrast that to systems that follow the principle of “say yes or roll the dice”, where a GM deciding a declared action is not possible violates that principle.

Force can always happen. And I would imagine there are many GMs out there for whom it is the only way they understand how to play, and that they try to use it regardless of system or play expectations. However, I don’t think that means that some games aren’t more prone to allow GM force, or don’t do as much to actively discourage it as other games do.

 

[prabe]

For instance, take some of the discussion from earlier in the thread. Some games allow the GM the ability to decide that a declared action for a PC is impossible to achieve. In such systems, it’s accepted that this is within the GM’s authority. Contrast that to systems that follow the principle of “say yes or roll the dice”, where a GM deciding a declared action is not possible violates that principle.

Force can always happen. And I would imagine there are many GMs out there for whom it is the only way they understand how to play, and that they try to use it regardless of system or play expectations. However, I don’t think that means that some games aren’t more prone to allow GM force, or don’t do as much to actively discourage it as other games do.

I feel there's a difference between a GM in a game where the GM determines impossibility saying "it's not physically possible to jump across this canyon" and a GM in that same game saying "you can't change that NPC's mind." The former action should still be disallowed in "say yes or roll the dice" (and it seems as though there should be a mechanism to disallow it); the latter should be allowed. Even in the latter it might not be problematic (the players might reasonably expect their characters not to be able to change the god-like entity's mind, if it doesn't want them to).

 

[hawkeyefan]

I feel there's a difference between a GM in a game where the GM determines impossibility saying "it's not physically possible to jump across this canyon" and a GM in that same game saying "you can't change that NPC's mind." The former action should still be disallowed in "say yes or roll the dice" (and it seems as though there should be a mechanism to disallow it); the latter should be allowed. Even in the latter it might not be problematic (the players might reasonably expect their characters not to be able to change the god-like entity's mind, if it doesn't want them to).

Sure. I think that table consensus was mentioned earlier, and genre expectations and the like.

But there are also Player Principles that factor in. Blades in the Dark has a great one: “Don’t Be a Weasel”.

It covers a lot of territory....such as a player declaring his character jumps a couple hundred feet across a canyon in the absence of some setting element or PC ability that would allow him to do so.

 

[Nagol]

This is what I was getting at, yes. I would agree that GM force is a possibility no matter what system or GM style is in place. But some systems/styles actively work to discourage it.



That may be. As I replied to @prabe above, the possibility is always there. But I do think that with some systems, a GM exercising force starts to move into bad faith, and in other systems it does not.

For instance, take some of the discussion from earlier in the thread. Some games allow the GM the ability to decide that a declared action for a PC is impossible to achieve. In such systems, it’s accepted that this is within the GM’s authority. Contrast that to systems that follow the principle of “say yes or roll the dice”, where a GM deciding a declared action is not possible violates that principle.

Force can always happen. And I would imagine there are many GMs out there for whom it is the only way they understand how to play, and that they try to use it regardless of system or play expectations. However, I don’t think that means that some games aren’t more prone to allow GM force, or don’t do as much to actively discourage it as other games do.

Re: "Say yes or roll the dice"

DM: Your detective PCs realize the bad-guy just got in his car and driving away -- he's about half a mile ahead of you. What do you do?
Player: I jump in front of his car!
DM: Err....

The philosophy of 'say yes or roll' relies on sensible interactions with the established fiction. The DM determining auto-fails also only works with sensible interactions with established fiction. In that case however, the players need to be more cautious as there can be layers of fiction that have been established, but not yet shared.

 

[prabe]

Sure. I think that table consensus was mentioned earlier, and genre expectations and the like.

But there are also Player Principles that factor in. Blades in the Dark has a great one: “Don’t Be a Weasel”.

It covers a lot of territory....such as a player declaring his character jumps a couple hundred feet across a canyon in the absence of some setting element or PC ability that would allow him to do so.

I think "Don't be a weasel" is good advice, for any player, in any TRPG. I am fortunate that I don't have any players at the tables I GM for that have given me that sort of trouble. I rarely declare things utterly impossible in-game, I do a lot of auto-success.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The DM determining auto-fails also only works with sensible interactions with established fiction.

I agree with your post overall...except this bit I’ve quoted above.

I think this statement can be the case, but I also think a DM can block actions he considers impossible, but that others would consider possible. Usually in situations that lack a clearly measurable thing, such as the example with the canyon.

Social interactions such as convincing someone or swaying their opinion or lying to them....these are harder to classify as “impossible”. But many do so.

 

[Nagol]

I agree with your post overall...except this bit I’ve quoted above.

I think this statement can be the case, but I also think a DM can block actions he considers impossible, but that others would consider possible. Usually in situations that lack a clearly measurable thing, such as the example with the canyon.

Social interactions such as convincing someone or swaying their opinion or lying to them....these are harder to classify as “impossible”. But many do so.

If there is legitimate disagreement as to possibility of success then determining an auto-fail isn't a sensible interaction. Can people do it still? Yeah. But it is on par with someone claiming their PC can "totally" carry their gear, the partner's gear and their partner while running from a bear.

However, approaching the secret mistress of the duke with an appeal to join the resistance and replace the duchy with a democracy may just be an auto-fail.

 

[prabe]

Social interactions such as convincing someone or swaying their opinion or lying to them....these are harder to classify as “impossible”. But many do so.

I have declared outright that the PCs weren't able to use Insight to get a feel for whether a god-like entity was lying to them (she wasn't). But they knew who and what she was.