Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 7917299" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Alright, before the proverbial horse that you're setting up to get out the gate wreaks its havoc, let me correct your misunderstanding (at least with respect to me...I'll let others speak for themselves or they can agree with me as they like):When I use the term GM Force, its associated with a very specific type of player agency that is being subordinated to the whim of the GM.&nbsp; Now some systems promote this &quot;GM Force subordinating player agency&quot; as a &quot;feature&quot;, the most famous being White Wolf with its Golden Rule, of which AD&amp;D 2e co-opted (and spawned an orthodoxy henceforth).&nbsp; In that case its not &quot;extra-system&quot; GM Force.&nbsp; Accordingly, I won't decry it for being a game that is deceitful about what is happening behind the curtain, because it is honest that Illusionism (covert GM Force) is fundamental to play because the apex priority is about something else (typically &quot;the GM tells a good story and controls the trajectory of play, while the players participate in the GM's story and everyone has a good time.&quot;).But, regardless of the systemitized GM Force/Illusionism...its still there.So here is my issue as it pertains to GM Force (covert or overt) and player agency.GM Force is the subordination by fiat of a player's thematic, strategic, tactical (any/all) decision-making to the whim/will of the GM, for the sake of controlling the gamestate and the overall trajectory of play.The games I'm talking about in this thread (a) don't have subordination by GM fiat and (b) they don't condone (in fact they do the opposite) GMs controlling the gamestate and the trajectory of play. Social Conflict mechanics imposing states-of-being on PCs and creating finality of resolution are neither principally nor definitionally the same thing as GM Force (whether the system condones it as a feature or not).Hopefully that makes sense and clears that all up.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 7917299, member: 6696971"] Alright, before the proverbial horse that you're setting up to get out the gate wreaks its havoc, let me correct your misunderstanding (at least with respect to me...I'll let others speak for themselves or they can agree with me as they like): When I use the term [I]GM Force[/I], its associated with a very specific type of [I]player agency[/I] that is being subordinated to the whim of the GM. Now some systems promote this "GM Force subordinating player agency" as a "feature", the most famous being White Wolf with its Golden Rule, of which AD&D 2e co-opted (and spawned an orthodoxy henceforth). In that case its not "extra-system" GM Force. Accordingly, I won't decry it for being a game that is deceitful about what is happening behind the curtain, because it is honest that Illusionism (covert GM Force) is fundamental to play because the apex priority is about something else (typically "the GM tells a good story and controls the trajectory of play, while the players participate in the GM's story and everyone has a good time."). But, regardless of the systemitized GM Force/Illusionism...its still there. So here is my issue as it pertains to GM Force (covert or overt) and player agency. [I][B]GM Force is the subordination by fiat of a player's thematic, strategic, tactical (any/all) decision-making to the whim/will of the GM, for the sake of controlling the gamestate and the overall trajectory of play.[/B][/I] The games I'm talking about in this thread (a) don't have subordination by GM fiat and (b) they don't condone (in fact they do the opposite) GMs controlling the gamestate and the trajectory of play. Social Conflict mechanics imposing states-of-being on PCs and creating finality of resolution are neither principally nor definitionally the same thing as GM Force (whether the system condones it as a feature or not). Hopefully that makes sense and clears that all up. [/QUOTE]

Verification