"Illusionism" and "GM force" in RPGing

[hawkeyefan]

Of course you can. I just did. The severed pieces do converge to a whole - that introducing content is also forcing under @Manbearcat's definition. Why? because introducing content meets every requirement in his definition - which was the purpose of severing it to begin with - to show that this was the case.

How does it nullify or modify player input?

I mean, I can see how a specific element introduced may do so, but not any and all elements introduced.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Not in my view. I think the notion of GM guidance and/or manipulation to a fore-ordained goal does the job.

This overlaps with @Manbearcat's characterisation in part: fore-ordained goal is roughly synonymous with GM-envisioned narrative.

But it differs from @Manbeacat's characterisation in part: it uses a general notion of guidance and/or manipulation without further stipulating that this must nullify or modify player input.

Contra @Ovinomancer, this difference does not pertain to moments vs arcs of play: guidance to a fore-ordained outcome can be attributed to a particular moment of play (like the Gygax secret door example) just as much as manipulation of the gamestate to establish or maintain a GM-envisioned narrative. Which is no surprise, given the rough synonymy of the italicised phrases.

The difference is that modifying or nullifying player input happens at a certain point of the action resolution process, namely, downstream from the player input in question. Whereas guiding or manipulating towards a goal can occur upstream of player input into action resolution, that is, in the process of framing. Which is what is happening in the DL case (strong manipulation) and the secret door case (barest of guidance).

I disagree with this formulation. The "guidance" you speak of is hard to separate from legitimate content introduction. The only this you have here is 'foreordained conclusion'. This is a hard sell, as if I have an idea the night before a game of Blades that I think might be neat, and an opportunity arises in game that fits, if I deploy that using my authority to frame I'm not engaged in guidance to a foreordained conclusion, I'm introducing an idea I may have though earlier. You've blurred this by suggesting that @FrogReaver's introduction of a dungeon by letting players find out about it's existence is this kind of guidance. But, the GM has the authority to create dungeons in many games, and giving players the option to explore it doesn't seem like guidance, it seems like giving, I don't know, an option. This can't be Force, or all of D&D is force, including Gygaxian play.

In other words, unless I'm negating previous player input I don't see how Force can be applied in framing unless the definition of Force is meant to include all games where framing isn't 100% centered on the characters. The GM is as much a player and entitled to introduce themes they find interesting, so long as they don't override the players while doing so.

The Gygax secret door example appears to be Force in my opinion because it's subverting the player input in a skilled game to reach a GM desired outcome. The idea in skilled play, as I understand it, is that you deploy character resources in a skilled way and you succeed through how you deploy those resources. In that play concept, subverting the skill input of the players is Force. It's not a framing issue, because finding secret doors is not a matter of framing in this mode of play. You've moved something that should be an outcome of skilled play into framing, and that's what's resulting in Force -- the negation of player input in finding the secret door according to the assumptions of play.

I think this is putting me slightly at odds with @chaochou above, which always worries me because he's a better analyst of RPGing than I am! In the DL example I believe that the GM is exercising authority that the rulebooks and module confer - the GM has authority to frame those encounters. I also think that the GM is exercising force, because s/he is manipulating the trajectory of play towards a fore-ordained goal.

In the Gygax wandering monster case, I think - for the reasons I've given - no force is being exercised (and as I posted not far upthread I think my characterisation and @Manbearcat's characterisation produce the same conclusion in this respect). But the GM is pushing the limits of authority, because suspending what presents itself as a mandated procedure by appeal to a much more vaguely and waffly-worded permission to wield overwhelming power. But I think that's mostly because Gygax wasn't a terribly good writer of rules. I think that the wanderming monster system could be rewritten more clearly (maybe using the Apocalpyse World presentation of clocks as a starting point) to both state its purpose (it's about punishing bad play that wastes time and creates noise, with a simulationist side-effect of presenting dungeon ecology) and then explain why, if that purpose is not being served due to unlikely rolls vs a group playing skillfully, the clock can be temporarily suspended. That would make it clearer that it's not force and also make it clearer how the GM is meant to do it without breaking the rules.

Of course this requires a GM to exercise judgement. But that's an unremarkable feature of a traditional RPG and not especially related to the notion of force.

I'm with @Manbearcat, here. If the decision to forgo wandering monster checks is player facing, it's fine. If it's not, then doing so is Force according to the mode of play expected. You've modified the player inputs into how they want to avoid wandering monsters in a skilled way by deciding there are none when the players expect there to be some.

 

[FrogReaver]

How does it nullify or modify player input?

I mean, I can see how a specific element introduced may do so, but not any and all elements introduced.

When content is introduced players must either ignore it or interact with it. Part 1 should be obvious - if they interact with the content then introducing that content modified their input by getting them to interact with the new content. Part 2 isn't quite as obvious - if they ignore the content then introducing the content modified their input by getting them to ignore the new content. In either case their input is modified from where it previously was.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Of course you can. I just did. The severed pieces do converge to a whole - that introducing content is also forcing under @Manbearcat's definition. Why? because introducing content meets every requirement in his definition - which was the purpose of severing it to begin with - to show that this was the case.

No it doesn't, and the key here is how you severed the player input part. The manipulation of the gamestate has to modify or nullify player input that already exists at the moment of manipulation. When you severed it, you confused yourself into thinking that any future player input would be modified or nullified. But, this definition applies at a specific moment in time -- where the GM manipulates the gamestate. Player input is an input to the function, not a future state.

 

[FrogReaver]

No it doesn't, and the key here is how you severed the player input part. The manipulation of the gamestate has to modify or nullify player input that already exists at the moment of manipulation.

"modify or nullify input that already exists at the moment of manipulation"

The bolded wasn't part of the original definition you provided me. It's easy to say my understanding of a concept is wrong when you continue to add to the definition to negate my criticisms.

When you severed it, you confused yourself into thinking that any future player input would be modified or nullified. But, this definition applies at a specific moment in time -- where the GM manipulates the gamestate. Player input is an input to the function, not a future state.

That's not in the definition you originally provided.

 

[Ovinomancer]

"modify or nullify input that already exists at the moment of manipulation"

The bolded wasn't part of the original definition you provided me. It's easy to say my understanding of a concept is wrong when you continue to add to the definition to negate my criticisms.



That's not in the definition you originally provided.

Of course it was. The definition is about examining a moment of play. I'm pretty sure I said that. That you ignored it an ran off somewhere else isn't on me.

 

[FrogReaver]

I know of no "offical" definition. Who would be the authority? I prefer @Manbearcat's recent formulation, as it succinctly sums up my understanding of Force:

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.

@Ovinomancer

I see no mention of moments here

 

[Ovinomancer]

"modify or nullify input that already exists at the moment of manipulation"

The bolded wasn't part of the original definition you provided me. It's easy to say my understanding of a concept is wrong when you continue to add to the definition to negate my criticisms.



That's not in the definition you originally provided.

I mean, we can get there textually, too, by not severing the definition and examining it as a whole. The definition is about the manipulation of the gamestate. How do I manipulate the gamestate at a later time when I introduce material? I can't, because the introduced material is now part of the gamestate moving forward. Manipulation only occurs in the present moment, so any player input must already exist in the present moment.

 

[Ovinomancer]

@Ovinomancer

I see no mention of moments here

Well, sure, when you take the post out of context with the arguments that led to you asking me for the definition, I suppose you might miss it.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, sure, when you take the post out of context with the arguments that led to you asking me for the definition, I suppose you might miss it.

I'm sorry I'm not a mind reader. You said that definition succinctly sums up your understanding of forcing. I took that at face value. Apologies if that definition doesn't succinctly sum up your understanding of forcing - as evidenced by the need to add more to it in light of my examination of it.

If you want to give me the actual definition I should be looking at I'll be happy to take another look. But there's no point in you acting like you said something you didn't originally and then arguing with me about it.