A Question Of Agency?

[Lanefan]

@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.").

OK, so maybe I'm using the wrong term. What term should I use for "The GM is forcing a desired outcome to occur" other than railroad (which is a term I'm kinda trying to avoid)?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I totally get the preference of wanting the logic behind a ruling or mechanic to be based on drama or narrative. That is fair. What I don't get here is why you think it is impossible for the GM to determine what happens based on anything else. I mean just because it is not possible for a human GM to simulate reality, that doesn't mean they can't decide things based on what they think would happen (using common sense, world knowledge etc). The question is whether the players find the rulings believable for the purposes of a game. But none of that means the GM is employing narrative or dramatic logic. This is evident by the very problem you identify. Your whole issue is the GM on his or her own is not capable of producing something dramatically satisfying. If the GM were only capable of emptying dramatic logic then surely more campaigns would be dramatically successful. It is the very fact that they are employing other rationales in their rulings that things don't pan out dramatically all the time (and to some players can appear pointless or boring). I am not trying to be pugnacious with you here, but it is really hard for me to take your claims of serious analysis seriously, when the imply that if the GM isn't employing dramatic logic they must be coming form some truly nefarious place (i.e. seducing a player or advancing a political agenda). I don't see how we can have a real conversation about playstyle differences if you can't even acknowledge the existence of things other people experience in games, and the only way you can acknowledge them is by casting them in an extremely dubious light.

Like I said, I don't think they are coming from anywhere except a desire for either gamist convenience/practicality, or narrative considerations. I discount all 'nefarious' motives, and I thought that was pretty clear in what I posted before. I just pointed out these to show that there didn't seem to be any that are very plausible BESIDES those two.

I think 'plausibility' IS a part of 'dramatic considerations'. I mean, sometimes what is dramatic is implausible, admittedly (and I've heard this as an objection to narrative play too) but in general drama at least demands that there be SOME logic we can use to explain how X flowed out of Y. Maybe that logic is 'magic', or 'luck', now and then, but in most cases it is more a question of some character had a trait which generated a dramatic conflict, which lead to some kind of action which eventually lead to a resolution of the dramatic conflict. In the process we learn something about the nature of the character (IE what the trait is, how that trait could impact someone's life, etc.). There has to be coherence within at least the genre sensibilities of the story in order for that process to play out.

As for "what the GM decides may only depend on plausibility" what else is plausibility for? If not narrative purposes, then what? Again, I think gamist convenience is a legitimate answer (IE I made the tunnel collapse because there's no map of the area beyond it).

 

[Lanefan]

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.

However, if you "say yes" when it's not appropriate as per the system, then what?

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

When the world is presented essentially as someone else narrating a story, already choosing what is salient and what is not, what matters and what doesn't, the situation is very different. I don't think it's possible to immerse into that.

Other people's experiences would seem to disagree, since I've seen people discussing immersing under just that circumstances (I can't do heavy immersion face to face at all, so its moot to me).

Edit: To make it clear, I'm not suggesting you're mistaken in your own reactions here; I just think your last sentence overgeneralizes.

 

[Campbell]

However, if you "say yes" when it's not appropriate as per the system, then what?

We handle it socially. Just like any other game when someone breaks a rule. "Not cool Dave. You moved an extra space."

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, lets not get too wrapped up in 'less real'...

I would say that there is an immediacy if you can say "yes, my belief IS real" or at least define some things that happen/are true in game that relate to it (maybe they have some other explanation, this uncertainty might be useful). Anyway, remember, players don't get authority to just "make my wishes come true", at best they might stipulate things that engage their agenda. The GM will play a key role in determining what exactly it means. It could be that "Yes, indeed Corellon is real, and he's also got a chip on his shoulder for humans, OOPS!"

You're missing my point; I don't think roleplaying a person of faith is dependent on the reality of what they believe in. I don't know if its relevant at all, and kind of think when it is, it shouldn't be.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well, I essentially brought it up too in the context of "nobody can possibly know what will happen in a situation in view of all the complexity that would exist in a world." My point was kind of different, which was that we are largely 'flying blind' in terms of any sort of deduction about what would happen in the fictional game world 'realistically'. We can barely make such conclusions about the REAL world, let alone the mere sketch we can describe of the presumed undefined richness of 'Forgotten Realms' or whatever.

Oh absolutely. The range of possibilities is going to tend to be be far greater than what we can come up with. I think that relates to my "plausible outcome" being discarded for "most plausible outcome" comments.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You're missing my point; I don't think roleplaying a person of faith is dependent on the reality of what they believe in. I don't know if its relevant at all, and kind of think when it is, it shouldn't be.

OK, it is fair to say that you can RP someone who's faith is FALSE, sure. However, I would assume that will become a salient point! I mean, given that faith is a significant element of the PC, then its likely to factor into the fiction. I would think that this would be something that the player would get a say in, at least potentially. It is hard to say given the wide range of games out there. A game might INTEND to focus on this falsity as an element of the genre/tone or something. Anyway, I think it is fair to say that players have a stake in this.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Oh absolutely. The range of possibilities is going to tend to be be far greater than what we can come up with. I think that relates to my "plausible outcome" being discarded for "most plausible outcome" comments.

Right, I think there very much are "plausible sounding outcomes" and we cannot say that certain outcomes are 'implausible' either (I guess we can kind of do that in view of the genre, but not for deterministic reasons).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Often I also feel like people armor themselves with these "I have a strong preference" things, and then they are likely to pass on stuff they might actually LIKE.

While probably true, there's also the "try this fish" phenomenon, where someone has tried various other things and found them unsatisfactory (sometimes actively offputting) enough times that the cost to benefit of doing so yet again because "this time will be different" just isn't there.