Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 7919545" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Alright, so multiple things here:1)  With respect, I'm not a big fan of the meta-analysis of the psychology and sociology of what is happening in your post above.  Its not that I disagree with it.  Honestly, its that I don't care.  I don't come to this board to accuse people of ONETRUEWAY or see people accuse me or others of it.  That is so_effing_tired on this board.  Its not going to condition people away from talking about games the way they are.  If that worked, it would have worked a long_long_long time ago.In my opinion, all of this "YOU'RE (not you, people) ACCUSING ME OF BADWRONGFUN ETC ETC" does nothing but stifle actual conversation about design imperatives, GMing techniques, and actual play analysis based on design imperatives and GMing techniques.  People have to sift through the weeds of dozens of back and forth of this meta-analysis of board culture and motive-hunting all the time.Yes, there is blatant edition warring troll stuff.  That is, by far, the worst.  But now that 4e is gone, its cooled by orders of magnitude.  This other stuff has become, by far, the WORST part of trying to engage and sustain interesting discussion on ENWorld.I come here for interesting, technical conversations about TTRPGing.  I know some folks are offended by that and/or don't think that is possible because they believe that TTRPGs are mostly/wholly art and reducing it to technical conversation is unsettling (or something).  I obviously concede it is some art, but also lots of other stuff.  I want to talk about that other stuff.  I'm certainly not going to spend my time telling them that they're unsettled or offended by the art:engineering (and whatever else divide) and belabor that over_and_over_and_over.With respect, if they don't want to engage in technical conversations about TTRGing, they can just not engage.  Telling me to stop or that they feel that I or anyone else uses technical conversation about TTRPGs to diminish them or their play...its not going to stop me from trying to have these conversations.So with that out of the way....2)  Unrelated, I can't remember where you and I were having an exchange about murderhobo play, but the implication you made (I think) was that some people want murderhobo play.  Of course they do.  If that is their aim, then their play cannot degenerate to that.  It can only ascend to that.  If I say "degenerate into murderhobo play", I would hope the inference you would draw is that (a) they don't want to be engaged with murderhobo play yet (b) they've found themselves there do to some combination of system design (like  screwy PC build design, incoherent incentive structures, or action resolution mechanics that don't propel play toward their aim and away from murderhoboing, or an approach to GMing that propels play toward strategic disconnectedness from setting/situation and expedient/pragmatic slaughter).To repeat, if I say "degenerate", the inference that should be drawn is that the participants at the table didn't want to end up where they are.  They wanted to be somewhere else but ended up here anyway.3)  Back to technical conversation, you disagree with me on the definition of GM Force.  I've offered my definition many times (in this thread and others).  Here is my definition in a different arrangement of words:Manipulation of the gamestate (typically covert) by a GM which nullifies (or in slightly more benign cases; modifies) player input in order to form or maintain a narrative that conforms to the GM's vision.Disagree with that?If so, could you explain whether you think this thing that I've described above is a phenomenon in TTRPGing?If it is, could you explain what we're disagreeing about?  Is it impact on the trajectory of play?  Is it impact on the psychology at the table (due to players' perception of the new mode of authority distribution at the table after the GM has deployed it)?  This latter bit seems to be where [USER=16814]@Ovinomancer[/USER] and I are disagreeing.You can correct me if I'm wrong here [USER=16814]@Ovinomancer[/USER] , but it seems that your position is that all of the following are true:* The impact on the trajectory of play (the present and future gamestate) of a GM who uses Force is continuum-based.* The impact on the psychology of the table (regarding newly defined authority distribution post-Force) is also continuum-based.Is that correct?Let me interject here (interject...with...myseeeeeeeeeeeeeelf?).Like the conversation about about "degenerating into murderhoboing", the conversation about Force has to entail 3 table states when it comes to expectations and psychological ramifications:STATE 1 - None of these players care about Force.  Therefore, there can be no degenerate play with respect to Force.  They're just completely casual, hang out and have a good time and GM do whatever the eff they want to entertain them.STATE 2 - These players EXPECT Force to be used.  They want the GM to hit the "Force accelerator" as need be to ensure that the story told at the table is compelling in the way they want it to be compelling.STATE 3 - These players abhor Force.  They expect it to never be used.  They want player-facing rules that work sans-Force and clearly delineated authority distribution and transparent GMing.To be clear, when I'm having these conversations, its STATE 3, that I'm talking about.  There is no purpose in talking about STATE 1 or STATE 2.  Those tables probably exist in much higher proportion than 3, but when it comes to Force, they're agnostic or supportive...so talking about Force's effect on play for their table psychology is irrelevant (in the same way that play doesn't "degenerate" into murderhobo play when the players are agnostic and/or want/expect it).[HR][/HR]So then, thoughts on that definition of Force above and all the crap I threw up there surrounding it.Also, to [USER=16814]@Ovinomancer[/USER] (and anyone else who wants to reply, including [USER=6785785]@hawkeyefan[/USER] who just posted directly above about it), outside of table psychology, but back to the impact on the actual machinery of play (as it pertains to GM-driven vs Character-driven), do you have in mind a break-point where something becomes GM-driven vs Character-driven?  I'm not looking for a quantity here, but a quality (if you're able to describe it).</blockquote>

Verification