Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7922065" data-attributes="member: 42582">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.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. 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.)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.</blockquote>

Verification