Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Fenris-77" data-source="post: 7920941" data-attributes="member: 6993955">All I was getting at is that the idea of force is a lot more nuanced than just pertaining to obvious and overt instances of &quot;overriding player input&quot;. There is always a tension between the player's and GM's various inputs into the fiction and the GM always has a desired result, and his choices as GM generally index that desired result. I think it's missing the mark to try and make the distinction you're trying to make. I might be suborning the common usage of 'GM force' here, but I'm doing it on purpose. The GMs whole job is to use his input into the fiction, whatever that is, to try and help create the best version of whatever the social contract at the table has decided is the optimal play experience (ideally anyway). With multiple players there are enough competing inputs at the table that even a good GM with honorable intentions is going to have to pick and choose and occasionally override individual player input just to keep the ball rolling. I'm not suggesting that this is a bad thing, rather the opposite in fact, what's important though is that the definition of GM force that gets bandied around would also apply to my example.Specifically, I feel like we need to move beyond the notion that the idea of 'players' is monolithic at the table. That admission allows us to press the discussion past the rather tired notion of 'sides' into the realm of the actually descriptive when it comes to parsing what actually happens at the table.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Fenris-77, post: 7920941, member: 6993955"] All I was getting at is that the idea of force is a lot more nuanced than just pertaining to obvious and overt instances of "overriding player input". There is always a tension between the player's and GM's various inputs into the fiction and the GM always has a desired result, and his choices as GM generally index that desired result. I think it's missing the mark to try and make the distinction you're trying to make. I might be suborning the common usage of 'GM force' here, but I'm doing it on purpose. The GMs whole job is to use his input into the fiction, whatever that is, to try and help create the best version of whatever the social contract at the table has decided is the optimal play experience (ideally anyway). With multiple players there are enough competing inputs at the table that even a good GM with honorable intentions is going to have to pick and choose and occasionally override individual player input just to keep the ball rolling. I'm not suggesting that this is a bad thing, rather the opposite in fact, what's important though is that the definition of GM force that gets bandied around would also apply to my example. Specifically, I feel like we need to move beyond the notion that the idea of 'players' is monolithic at the table. That admission allows us to press the discussion past the rather tired notion of 'sides' into the realm of the actually descriptive when it comes to parsing what actually happens at the table. [/QUOTE]

Verification