Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7922061" data-attributes="member: 42582">This is where framing and "secret backstory" (ie elements of the fiction as understood by the GM that are not shared by the players) become crucial.If a player declares I seem to recall Evard's tower is somewhere around here, isn't it? and then suggests a knowldege check to resolve the matter, what are the ranges of permitted GM response? (And let's assume that the player's suggestion is consistent with general tone, genre and established fiction, so there isn't a need for the GM or other participants to police it from a coherence/appropriateness perspective.)Is there a difference between the GM saying (for instance), and without a roll, You don't know and No, we're not doing Evard's tower at this point? I think there is.The second is upfront assertion of GM control over backstory and situation. Of course, if the system being played allows for knowledge checks to be used by a player to control, or at least influence, backstory and situation then the second, while upfront, is still clear force contrary to the rules of the game. (And I take the actual example from the Burning Wheel game where I'm a player, and I declared the action for my PC's offsider, and then made a Great Masters-wise check, and succeeded - with the result that we made our way to Evard's tower! It would have been flat-out wrong for the GM to exercise force in lieu of allowing the check.)The first to me smacks of an illusionistic version of the second. (The more extreme illusionism would be to allow the check but give the same answer regardless of the result.) The GM is controlling the shared fiction but presenting that control in "in-fiction" terms. Do this enough for various sorts of action declaration and the result becomes something like a railroad. On the other hand, I think it's in this thread that [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] flagged the fact that some players/participants are perturbed by clear procedures and upfront answers. They may not want the (immersion-breaking?) response We're not doing Evard's tower. For those groups GM force I think is inevitably going to figure prominently in resolution.There have been posts saying that force might be used when the rules themselves don't give the experience desired, or when it's not appreciated that they do. But if the experience desired includes never knowing the actual reason why the GM makes decisions (like we're not doing Evard's tower tonight) then there may be no way out of force for that group. For my part, the only satisfactory RPG experiences I think I've had using such an approach are CoC one-shots.</blockquote>

Verification