Both these cases are strong assertions of GM authority over scene-framing. I don't necessarily see that they're force because in neither case does there seem to be any action resolution going on.
Yeah, I'm not sure they quite reach the idea of Force as it had been presented, I was just trying to throw out a couple of examples that occurred to me.
That second claim might be contentious - but if we say that action resolution means some meaningful change in either the mechanical situation, or the fictional situation, or both, then I think it's plausible. Your mundane encounters (I'm assuming this is talking-to-shopkeepers stuff) seem (if I may be so bold) mere time-wasting colour.
Yes, you got it. I am uninterested in banter between a shopkeeper and a PC, unless there's something potentially meaningful involved. Same with haggling about prices and so on....we don't need to act that all out. You want to talk the guy down in price a bit? Okay, make a check to see how successful that is. Luckily, our games have kind of moved past that resource management aspect to the point this rarely comes up anymore. But I used to have one or two players who would use every single NPC they met as a chance to act out an interaction of some sort. A little of that is fine to help establish a person's character.....but for me it quickly becomes self indulgence, and I move on.
The second one maybe is meant to involve resource consumption? But it's also a safe place where they can rest and get back their spells and hp? And at least as you present it no actions had really been declared. (In my Illusionism thread I mentioned Roger Musson's union meeting of ogres, to stop the players going down a corridor that the GM hasn't written up yet. The line between that, and what you did, might be fine but I think it's worth noting. You didn't leave the players' action declarations on foot and narrate further content and consequences. You just reframed the whole situation.)
Right, I just reframed it. Which is what I would have done had I realized all the implications in actual play of what I thought was a kind of interesting idea when reading through the book. Then we got to that point of actual play, and I realized we were going to spend potentially hours of the game on this, and I just didn't want to do that. Nor would I have expected my players to want to do that (which they later confirmed when I explained), so I simply narrated it, said that they spent a couple of hours on it, and that yes, they could use it as a potentially safe hiding space to rest and recover if needed.
This goes back to something I think I posted upthread (again, I've got thread-merging-confusion) - if all GM decisions about the fiction are equated with force than the latter concept becomes analytically unhelpful.
There is a widespread view that the GM framing scenes is railroading unless they're scenes with a "quest-giver" in a tavern so that the players have the (at least notional choice) of taking the quest or keeping on chatting with the barmaid. But I think you only have to state the view plainly to see it's pretty implausible. Of course strong scene-framing might be contrary to some agreed point of a game - say dungeon-crawling or hex-crawling - but that doesn't make it force. Not all bad GMing, or poorly-judged narration, is force.
Yeah. I know you and I have in the past had some discussions on this where we disagreed a bit, but I really don't think that we do. A GM will always have influence on the game via setting and scene framing and the like. As we've discussed further, I think we're very much of similar mind on this.