Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
Okay, this is exciting posting and all, I'm sure everyone's enjoying it, but let's just move forward with a shared understanding?
"Illusionism" and "GM force" in RPGing
FrogReaver
As long as i get to be the frog
Agree. Only slight issue is that I'm not sure I'm completely understanding. So please bear with me as I try to.
hawkeyefan
Legend
You don’t think that the intention was that player input that had already been established is what is nullified or modified?
Basically, the GM ignoring what the players have already determined, either by totally ignoring it, or by changing it in order to get an outcome that he wanted instead of the one the players’ choices were leading to.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
That's part of it, with the other part being attempts to modify player input before it occurs e.g. by only giving one option or by being very non-neutral in narrating choices, etc.
Last edited:
FrogReaver
As long as i get to be the frog
Maybe? When provided a definition I tend to examine it on it's own merits - not necessarily what is intended by the author of said definition - possibly because I'm more of a math person - i'm sure the natural thing for an English person is to try to understand intention and fill in the missing gaps.
If I was going to define GM forcing I would define it as:
"The GM unfairly manipulating the players via in-fiction actions so that they have their characters do something in-fiction he desires them to do."
I think the basic concept missing from most of the definitions is the idea of unfairness - even though it's been mentioned in few posts.
hawkeyefan
Legend
Okay, gotcha. I thought the context was clear based on the discussion, but that kind of thing will vary in discussion, especially in online discussions like these which are happening in spurts, likely mixed in between a lot of other activity on the part of the participants.
Manbearcat
Legend
Alright, so I'm going to throw out some examples of GM Force, all using the same ruleset; 5e D&D (as everyone here is at least passingly familiar with it).
I'm going to start with (imo), the best part of the ruleset; The Social Interaction conflict mechanics.
I'm going to use a Ranger trying to entreat a domesticated, traumatized, starving, old dog to come back with her to camp where she hopes to use Speak With Animals to communicate with the creature in the morning (to learn about a situation that the dog witnessed); @Nagol . In this case, the GM just doesn't want this dog to be befriended because they want to keep the mystery of the situation in play for awhile longer. They're enacting a classic "Block" against a gather information/divination player move.
The players are expecting the creature's Starting Attitude to be Friendly because of the above (as most dogs start friendly to strangers even without the stranger aiding them!).
1) The Ranger successfully tracks down the dog due to Natural Explorer and a high Survival Check so this can't possibly be blocked (or the Force will be so overt that it will cause a problem at the table).
2) Through a series of canine-esque social exchanges, the GM tells the Ranger player that the starving dog is fixated on its pouch where she keeps her dried jerky. This is a cinch. The Ranger player bends down, opens the pouch while reaching in and eyes the dog carefully (makes an Animal Handling check to uncover the I/B/F related to the food). The Ranger gets a 12 on the AH check. The player figures its got to be good enough to uncover the I/B/F and that the dog just wants some food. The GM says the dog just looks on warily, making no move to come forth (confirming nothing and not moving the social engagement forward).
The Ranger player is incredulous. How can a 12 not do the trick here? They were expecting success and to be able to deploy the I/B/F for advantage in the coming Charisma check or to increase the Attitude one level before the Charisma check.
3) A blizzard is coming in, its a freezing night, and predators lurk on the tundra. This is going nowhere and its getting dangerous (with the risk of the Exhaustion Track coming in play).
The Ranger player says, "enough of this, I open my pouch, brandish the jerky and move forward to the dog to give it to it manually." This forces the Charisma check to determine the dog's reaction.
The GM then says that the dog flattens its ears and growls as the Ranger approaches. Again, the player is incredulous. "Wait, what? This dog is Hostile? How?"
The GM explains his case for a Hostile Starting Attitude (starving, trauma, and the dog appears extremely paranoid by the Ranger...maybe something in its recent past).
The Ranger player is incredulous. Even if they buy the Starting Attitude of Hostile, it should have been moved to Indifferent from the prior actions of saving the dog...but...sure.
A Charisma check is virtually pointless here as the Ranger would need a 20 in order to get it.
4) Alright, Animal Friendship it is!
GM rolls in secret behind the screen and gets only a 2, but comes back with "the dog furrows its brow and emits a low growl; its clearly not ensorcelled".
In reality:
The GM made 3 separate moves of Force to enact this block (fudged Animal Handling DC > adversarial, but skillfully justified, Starting Attitude shuts down Charisma check > fudged Wisdom Saving Throw.
I'm going to start with (imo), the best part of the ruleset; The Social Interaction conflict mechanics.
I'm going to use a Ranger trying to entreat a domesticated, traumatized, starving, old dog to come back with her to camp where she hopes to use Speak With Animals to communicate with the creature in the morning (to learn about a situation that the dog witnessed); @Nagol . In this case, the GM just doesn't want this dog to be befriended because they want to keep the mystery of the situation in play for awhile longer. They're enacting a classic "Block" against a gather information/divination player move.
- While this dog is in bad shape, it isn't feral. Its domesticated.
- The dog was saved by the PCs from certain death and then ran off into the night when things got dangerous. This is a dog; it knows the PCs helped it.
The players are expecting the creature's Starting Attitude to be Friendly because of the above (as most dogs start friendly to strangers even without the stranger aiding them!).
1) The Ranger successfully tracks down the dog due to Natural Explorer and a high Survival Check so this can't possibly be blocked (or the Force will be so overt that it will cause a problem at the table).
2) Through a series of canine-esque social exchanges, the GM tells the Ranger player that the starving dog is fixated on its pouch where she keeps her dried jerky. This is a cinch. The Ranger player bends down, opens the pouch while reaching in and eyes the dog carefully (makes an Animal Handling check to uncover the I/B/F related to the food). The Ranger gets a 12 on the AH check. The player figures its got to be good enough to uncover the I/B/F and that the dog just wants some food. The GM says the dog just looks on warily, making no move to come forth (confirming nothing and not moving the social engagement forward).
The Ranger player is incredulous. How can a 12 not do the trick here? They were expecting success and to be able to deploy the I/B/F for advantage in the coming Charisma check or to increase the Attitude one level before the Charisma check.
3) A blizzard is coming in, its a freezing night, and predators lurk on the tundra. This is going nowhere and its getting dangerous (with the risk of the Exhaustion Track coming in play).
The Ranger player says, "enough of this, I open my pouch, brandish the jerky and move forward to the dog to give it to it manually." This forces the Charisma check to determine the dog's reaction.
The GM then says that the dog flattens its ears and growls as the Ranger approaches. Again, the player is incredulous. "Wait, what? This dog is Hostile? How?"
The GM explains his case for a Hostile Starting Attitude (starving, trauma, and the dog appears extremely paranoid by the Ranger...maybe something in its recent past).
The Ranger player is incredulous. Even if they buy the Starting Attitude of Hostile, it should have been moved to Indifferent from the prior actions of saving the dog...but...sure.
A Charisma check is virtually pointless here as the Ranger would need a 20 in order to get it.
4) Alright, Animal Friendship it is!
GM rolls in secret behind the screen and gets only a 2, but comes back with "the dog furrows its brow and emits a low growl; its clearly not ensorcelled".
In reality:
The GM made 3 separate moves of Force to enact this block (fudged Animal Handling DC > adversarial, but skillfully justified, Starting Attitude shuts down Charisma check > fudged Wisdom Saving Throw.
hawkeyefan
Legend
I used to do stuff like this back in the day routinely. Sometimes, it would be because I wanted to preserve something when a player introduced an unexpected solution to a problem, as in the example here. Other times, players would employ resources that I just didn’t appreciate, even though they were perfectly valid.
I’m a long way from that myself, but I recently ran into it in an online game with a froend of mine who’s a self identified “old school” DM. The group is of mixed experience, so most of the players didn’t realize it was happening, but another player and I did. I disn’t point it out, I finished the session. But I’m very unsure if I’ll play in the next one.
I’m a long way from that myself, but I recently ran into it in an online game with a froend of mine who’s a self identified “old school” DM. The group is of mixed experience, so most of the players didn’t realize it was happening, but another player and I did. I disn’t point it out, I finished the session. But I’m very unsure if I’ll play in the next one.
FrogReaver
As long as i get to be the frog
The GM can have his own desires about how he wants the situation to play out and still be fair in how he has it play out. It seems very plausible that a traumatized starving dog runs away from the players, that trying to have it take food from your hand won't work, and that approaching it would be viewed by it as a hostile act leaving it to respond in kind.
Traumatized starving dogs don't start friendly to anyone. Sounds like a misplaced expectation.
So no forcing here.
Seems to me like expecting a 12 to succeed in befriending the traumatized starving dog was a misplaced expectation.
Sounds like normal DM behavior of introducing new content.
Misplaced expectations. The dog should have been defensively hostile in that situation.
Depending upon the circumstances of saving the dog it may be an impact or not - since you didn't elaborate on how then this part cannot be judged.
Finally an example of forcing - profound unfairness (assuming dice fixing to that extent is frowned upon at that table - but under some tables even that wouldn't be viewed as unfair - and without that fundamental unfairness how can it be forcing?)
There is only 1 clear forcing move here. The rest of your case rests upon your description of the DM having a desire to keep a certain situation in play a little longer. But as previously noted - he can have that desire and still abjugate fairly.
Manbearcat
Legend
My second favorite part of the 5e ruleset: PC Background Features.
In this case of Force we have the Criminal Background:
The player wants to use their Criminal Contact who doubles as a gondolier who transports folks via the city canals during the day as a legal front for his illicit activities. The player has desperately tasked him to finesse a message to an illicit spice merchant NPC on the other side of the city who has under surveillance by the City Guard (looking for incriminating activity).
Fast forward to the evening and the Criminal Contact gondolier is in the clink. He paid a paper boy to insert a secret message into the folds of the day's paper and drop it on the doorstep of the spice merchant's shop. The City Guard grabbed the paper, chased down the boy, roughed him up for the identity of the person who hired him and made the arrest of the gondolier.
This is clearly a case of a GM (a) using their unique, unbridled access to content creation/the world to manufacture adversarial content, introducing a block which (b) subordinates a player's thematic input (c) via their PC-currency-spent feature (which effectively reads as player fiat and has no action resolution mechanics to resolve).
Now if this was a PBtA move, it would be resolved via 2d6+ modifier (probably Cha). If they rolled a 6-, this is absolutely an appropriate Hard Move. Its interesting, follows the fiction, reveals an unwelcome truth, and snowballs the danger into a cascading problem.
But this isn't PBtA and there isn't any action resolution mechanics in play.
Its a case where a GM vetos a player's input into the gamestate:fiction (which they purchased via PC build) in order to manufacture a block and force the players to engage the situation in an alternative way.
In this case of Force we have the Criminal Background:
The player wants to use their Criminal Contact who doubles as a gondolier who transports folks via the city canals during the day as a legal front for his illicit activities. The player has desperately tasked him to finesse a message to an illicit spice merchant NPC on the other side of the city who has under surveillance by the City Guard (looking for incriminating activity).
Fast forward to the evening and the Criminal Contact gondolier is in the clink. He paid a paper boy to insert a secret message into the folds of the day's paper and drop it on the doorstep of the spice merchant's shop. The City Guard grabbed the paper, chased down the boy, roughed him up for the identity of the person who hired him and made the arrest of the gondolier.
This is clearly a case of a GM (a) using their unique, unbridled access to content creation/the world to manufacture adversarial content, introducing a block which (b) subordinates a player's thematic input (c) via their PC-currency-spent feature (which effectively reads as player fiat and has no action resolution mechanics to resolve).
Now if this was a PBtA move, it would be resolved via 2d6+ modifier (probably Cha). If they rolled a 6-, this is absolutely an appropriate Hard Move. Its interesting, follows the fiction, reveals an unwelcome truth, and snowballs the danger into a cascading problem.
But this isn't PBtA and there isn't any action resolution mechanics in play.
Its a case where a GM vetos a player's input into the gamestate:fiction (which they purchased via PC build) in order to manufacture a block and force the players to engage the situation in an alternative way.
