A Question Of Agency?

[Manbearcat]

"Saying 'yes'" isn't GM force. It's not GM force when a player in an AD&D game says My character wears a red cloak and the GM says OK.

@Lanefan , if you don't understand why "saying yes" isn't GM Force by now, I'm not sure this will do any work:

GM Force is the willful subversion of a player's "say-so" with respect to the gamestate (that is the most abridged version I can muster). "Saying yes" cannot subvert a player's "say-so." It is definitionally acquiescence. Hence, it can never be Force (regardless of how you feel about the player's "say-so.").

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't agree with this. Part of what permits the real world to be understood providentially is that it presents itself in such richness, with such totality, that each person has the capacity to see a story in it that relates to his/her own convictions and ideals.

First, I don't think anyone knows the answer to this kind of speculation. But I am not sure this is true. I've had experiences I would regard as religious, and I don't think it is dependent on richness (i would argue bleakness can drive someone to that experience just as much as richness). Also once you get into things like depth and complexity, and the concept of immersion it gets wonky. I remember going to Disneyland as a kid and being overwhelmed by the richness and complexity of the sea of lights and people. Just being in the presence of that many people was confusing. I couldn't think straight because all I heard was a cacophony of people talking. This made it all to start to feel like a dream rather than reality (to the point that I was pinching myself and questioning if I was really there). So while richness of the world is important and good, I don't know that you can then port that over to a game or literary experience and say that is what makes it work in terms of being immersive. You can often strip the world down to very essential things and that can still resonate with people on an emotional or even spiritual level (and even be immersive). This seems like a questionable starting point to me when trying to figure out what immersion in a game is

 

[Crimson Longinus]

@Lanefan , if you don't understand why "saying yes" isn't GM Force by now, I'm not sure this will do any work:

GM Force is the willful subversion of a player's "say-so" with respect to the gamestate (that is the most abridged version I can muster). "Saying yes" cannot subvert a player's "say-so." It is definitionally acquiescence. Hence, it can never be Force (regardless of how you feel about the player's "say-so.").

So the GM fudging (either the dice or just mentally) so that the player succeeds in what they're attempting wouldn't be an use of 'GM force'?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Isn't this basically exactly the sort of situation that was discussed on the early pages of this thread with the 'GM later decided that the NPC informant was lying' example? Granted, It was so long ago that I have already forgotten what people's opinions on that were...

Well, yeah, I can see some parallel in that the PLAYER might assume that his PC is sure that the Lady believes him. Does the PLAYER believe that? We don't really know... So, sure, the character might, fictionally, feel betrayed later and duped if it turns out she's playing him, but this is not an entirely implausible narrative either. Yes, the GM could 'retcon' it that way. I don't think I find this INHERENTLY to deny agency. It MIGHT. For example: Later in the game the PC has achieved various successes based on his relationship with Lady Askol. Suddenly this relationship is revealed to be false, through no action declared by the player. I would not call this fair play. However, that could change if, say, there were indications to the contrary. Heck, the PLAYER may be fully cognizant of this betrayal, and the PC is not. You could play a scenario like that, and that would be fine. Even assuming the PC and the Player have the same beliefs, if they now build more on the lie and make it seem even less plausible (further instances of Psionics use that are hard to explain for example) then calling in the player's chips becomes less dubious.

I think, often, there is a lot of grey in these kinds of questions. Retcons don't bother me, inherently. Only if the GM gives the player solid evidence of something and then contradicts it later, then that is dirty pool.

 

[Manbearcat]

So the GM fudging (either the dice or just mentally) so that the player succeeds in what they're attempting wouldn't be an use of 'GM force'?

THAT is 100 % GM Force.

What you're talking about here is the following procedure:

* Player declares action.

* GM consults rules and whatever credibility test the game prescribes for the action declaration and determines that a test/contest is required. Presumably this is 1 of 2 cases; GM rolls in secret (which doesn't happen in the game @pemerton is referring to) or GM doesn't explicitly give the player a success condition for the throw (which, again, doesn't happen in the game @pemerton is referring to).

* Fortune roll ensues > player fails > GM ignores it.

A GM ignoring play procedures in order to erect their vision (even if the player's input was, or at least seemed to be, the impetus) upon play is absolutely Force.

GM has their say.

The Players have their say.

But SYSTEM always has its say too.

In the game @pemerton is referring to, "say yes or roll the dice" is a fundamental axiom of proper GMing. There are conditions upon which you "say yes" and upon which you "roll the dice". If "roll the dice" is required and you ignore the result in order to covertly "say yes" after the result should yield some kind of complication/setback/cost/failure, that is absolutely GM Force. If you "say yes" because its appropriate per the system, it can't be GM Force.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think this just gets at a fundamental divide over what people find fun and interesting. To me it is the sheer randomness of these kinds of deaths sometimes that makes the game exciting. One of my favorite sessions of 1E was one where my 1st level mage was killed in the first encounter by a stirge. To me this was a reminder that it was just a game. Stuff can just happen and be entertaining. It was a fun moment of play.

For a short while, yes. After the Nth random death, then the famous "Bob IV" syndrome sets in. This is exactly what birthed 2e's 'DM is a story teller' thing, in principle at least. It was SUPPOSED to give the DM the license to say "well, that wouldn't be interesting, lets not do that." but when you don't ALSO provide some principle/process/mechanics that let the player have a say in those decisions, then every situation became a potential railroad and nothing happened without 'DM permission'.

It is the reaction to THAT which lead to things like Maelstrom Storytelling and other early attempts (Everway comes to mind) to codify and process narrative direction. Since play, for any of us, is ABOUT meaningful narrative, being excluded from the process of constructing it is literally like just playing 2e where the DM decides everything, dice are mere set-dressing, and the players don't have any input into significance, dramatic structure, etc. Playing 2e, for me, is kind of like playing a version of chutes and ladders where the DM draws the board as we go. At best he might put a ladder where I want one.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

@Manbearcat I am not sure that I see this is a super meaningful distinction. In either instance the GM is granting a success via fiat. In one case it is merely hidden that it was done via fiat, while in another it was done so openly. Now people may have strong opinions about transparency, but I don't see how it matters for it being force or not...

 

[Bedrockgames]

For a short while, yes. After the Nth random death, then the famous "Bob IV" syndrome sets in. This is exactly what birthed 2e's 'DM is a story teller' thing, in principle at least.

For you perhaps that is the case. But try to understand, for some of this, this is what actually makes the game fun (the fact that it is a game)

 

[Manbearcat]

@Manbearcat I am not sure that I see this is a super meaningful distinction. In either instance the GM is granting a success via fiat. In one case it is merely hidden that it was done via fiat, while in another it was done so openly. Now people may have strong opinions about transparency, but I don't see how it matters for it being force or not...

What you're struggling with is the "System has its say" component of the play loop. Bluntly:

System says X
+ GM says "go eff yourself System, I want this result"
= Force

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

@Manbearcat I am not sure that I see this is a super meaningful distinction. In either instance the GM is granting a success via fiat. In one case it is merely hidden that it was done via fiat, while in another it was done so openly. Now people may have strong opinions about transparency, but I don't see how it matters for it being force or not...

I don't think TRANSPARENCY was the issue. I think 'faithfulness to the agreed-upon process and principles of play' was the issue here. The GM is not playing BW if he ignores the results of checks, regardless of if that turns success into failure or vice versa.

I think we can square that with @Manbearcat's formulation by stating that what the player ASKED FOR wasn't success, but to 'play to see what happens'. If the 'play' didn't happen (check which was called for being honored) then we're not 'seeing what happens', we're just reviewing what the GM expects/wants to happen.