One presumes that having the dog mutate and attack the PCs immediately after the forced roll wouldn't be force.
"Illusionism" and "GM force" in RPGing
One presumes that having the dog mutate and attack the PCs immediately after the forced roll wouldn't be force.
I'm assuming such would be normally acceptable as a scene, so you are correct. Force is being applied to achieve that particular scene regardless of player choice or gambit outcome. In effect, it is the same as having the castle at the end of whatever road the players choose.
Fair enough, presuming the characters are neither looking to find nor avoid the castle. I have less problem with deciding that party will (or might) encounter [thing] whichever way they go, if it's merely introducing content. Other folks have different preferences here, of course, and it's kinda a side alley in a thread already pockmarked with them.
If the players have preferences about castle discovery, that simply changes the visibility of the application. If the players are looking for it, its visibility goes down. If the players are trying to avoid it and find it anyway, the application of force becomes more obvious.
I don't think insertion of content in a neutral manner as a consequence typically is force or illusionism. It becomes one or both when the insertion fulfils a ulterior desire of the GM especially when the GM dissembles about the reason for the insertion and/or ignores mechanical results that would preclude the content he favours.
That looks about like my feelings.
Manbearcat
Legend
@Nagol
This seems to be related to the conversation that we had years ago about the Dungeon World play excerpt?
1) I can go over that excerpt again if it would help folks understand your contention about that particular excerpt (and my disagreement)? I'll briefly go over the framework for that excerpt below.
2) I agree that a GM who continuously makes fiction-disregarding soft moves when a hard move should be made is probably deploying Force. However, I think that should be VERY clear during play and certainly clear post-mortem.
3) I think the Blades in the Dark tech of Position and Effect is an improvement on the PBtA engine because the procedural generation of Position and Effect (and therefore status) in terms of mechanical consequence is helpful. However, that doesn't mean that I think AW and DW aren't trivially navigable simply by Following the Fiction, Make a Move that Follows, Fill Their Lives with Danger/Adventure, Bark Forth Apocalypta/Bring Dungeon World to Life, Play to Find out What Happens.
Just briefly concerning the schematics of that excerpt, using Blades in the Dark tech for post-mortem:
* The Parley move with the dog would have been Controlled Position and Standard Effect.
The reason why Controlled would have been the position was because (a) the dog was traumatized and the players managed to save it from certain death prior (it fled into the snowy wilderness night when things went to hell), (b) the dog was starving and old (likely unable to hunt effectively) so the show of food as the offering for Parley should be effective, (c) the PC involved in the Parley was a Ranger (who wasn't only good at being a Ranger general but could speak with animals specifically).
* So as such, when the move generated a 6- on the result (Failure and mark xp), Make a Move That Follows and following all of the game's principles seemed to me that there wasn't a Hard move that would honor prior play and make much sense.
The dog attacking her doesn't make sense (from the fiction nor from what would have been, in Blades parlance, a Controlled Position) mechanically, nor prior fiction, and it wouldn't be dangerous (the PC could trivially slaughter the dog).
So how would I resolve all of those things in concert?
I had two lingering soft moves out in the wild that were put into the gamestate prior and hadn't had an opportunity to actualize:
I deployed the latter because it felt like it resolved all of the above neatly (respected the gamestate, respected the prior fiction, was consequentially dangerous enough that something interesting should happen and possibly snowball and easily turn into a lethal scenario for both she and the dog).
The Ranger then looks around to orient herself in the encroaching darkness and consider her options (Discern Realities) and gets a 10+ (which expands her options for dealing with the problem). This would be Risky Position (normal).
The old dog wants her treat, but is terrified and freaked out by the oncoming thunderous hooves of the herd that are heading this way in the almost full-dark at this point. She runs nervously around the legs of the Ranger. The Ranger decides the nearby snowdrift (one of her options from DR) is the best option for them. She grabs the dog and jumps into the drift, collapsing the roof on them to hide from the stampede. Defy Danger @ 7-9 so Success Cost/Complication/Hard Choice. This would be Risky Position (normal).
I decided the Hard Choice would be that the freaked out old dog squirmed like crazy and kicked her quiver, spilling the majority of her arrows (leaving her with 1 Ammo remaining). She could either gather them and make a stand against the herd or sacrifice them and get in her the hidey-hole in the snow drift.
She chose the latter. For an Archer Ranger who can't resupply or forage arrows in a barren tundra, that is a hell of a loss in Dungeon World. But she wanted the dog. So down to her last few arrows.
I assume there (I can't recall from our conversation) that you felt that I should have created some kind of Hard Choice that would have put the dog in imminent peril? At the time, that just didn't feel like that made sense so it wouldn't have been "A Move That Followed" and still honored her success (but with complication) in the Defy Danger; player gets some of what they want. If I made the old dog incoherently just bolt right for the reindeer herd or out into the dark wilderness...that basically feels like a 6- result where the player gets none of what they want.
So they hide, the Ranger loses 1 Ration in feeding the dog while they're hidden, and the Ranger loses 3 Ammo (so 1 left).
At that point, I figured that as the Ranger had given it what it wanted (Food and Security), thus fully earned the dogs trust so another Parley move didn't make sense (where a Cost would still need to be in contention). They go back to the abandoned snowy village and settle in for the night and deal with trying to communicate in the morning.
That is the best I can remember it. We can do the post-mortem again as that is typically helpful to these conversations.
I'll let you read it again and let us know what you didn't like again and what felt like Force to you.
This seems to be related to the conversation that we had years ago about the Dungeon World play excerpt?
1) I can go over that excerpt again if it would help folks understand your contention about that particular excerpt (and my disagreement)? I'll briefly go over the framework for that excerpt below.
2) I agree that a GM who continuously makes fiction-disregarding soft moves when a hard move should be made is probably deploying Force. However, I think that should be VERY clear during play and certainly clear post-mortem.
3) I think the Blades in the Dark tech of Position and Effect is an improvement on the PBtA engine because the procedural generation of Position and Effect (and therefore status) in terms of mechanical consequence is helpful. However, that doesn't mean that I think AW and DW aren't trivially navigable simply by Following the Fiction, Make a Move that Follows, Fill Their Lives with Danger/Adventure, Bark Forth Apocalypta/Bring Dungeon World to Life, Play to Find out What Happens.
Just briefly concerning the schematics of that excerpt, using Blades in the Dark tech for post-mortem:
* The Parley move with the dog would have been Controlled Position and Standard Effect.
The reason why Controlled would have been the position was because (a) the dog was traumatized and the players managed to save it from certain death prior (it fled into the snowy wilderness night when things went to hell), (b) the dog was starving and old (likely unable to hunt effectively) so the show of food as the offering for Parley should be effective, (c) the PC involved in the Parley was a Ranger (who wasn't only good at being a Ranger general but could speak with animals specifically).
* So as such, when the move generated a 6- on the result (Failure and mark xp), Make a Move That Follows and following all of the game's principles seemed to me that there wasn't a Hard move that would honor prior play and make much sense.
The dog attacking her doesn't make sense (from the fiction nor from what would have been, in Blades parlance, a Controlled Position) mechanically, nor prior fiction, and it wouldn't be dangerous (the PC could trivially slaughter the dog).
So how would I resolve all of those things in concert?
I had two lingering soft moves out in the wild that were put into the gamestate prior and hadn't had an opportunity to actualize:
- The brutal blizzard.
- The herd of psychotic, stampeding reindeer.
I deployed the latter because it felt like it resolved all of the above neatly (respected the gamestate, respected the prior fiction, was consequentially dangerous enough that something interesting should happen and possibly snowball and easily turn into a lethal scenario for both she and the dog).
The Ranger then looks around to orient herself in the encroaching darkness and consider her options (Discern Realities) and gets a 10+ (which expands her options for dealing with the problem). This would be Risky Position (normal).
The old dog wants her treat, but is terrified and freaked out by the oncoming thunderous hooves of the herd that are heading this way in the almost full-dark at this point. She runs nervously around the legs of the Ranger. The Ranger decides the nearby snowdrift (one of her options from DR) is the best option for them. She grabs the dog and jumps into the drift, collapsing the roof on them to hide from the stampede. Defy Danger @ 7-9 so Success Cost/Complication/Hard Choice. This would be Risky Position (normal).
I decided the Hard Choice would be that the freaked out old dog squirmed like crazy and kicked her quiver, spilling the majority of her arrows (leaving her with 1 Ammo remaining). She could either gather them and make a stand against the herd or sacrifice them and get in her the hidey-hole in the snow drift.
She chose the latter. For an Archer Ranger who can't resupply or forage arrows in a barren tundra, that is a hell of a loss in Dungeon World. But she wanted the dog. So down to her last few arrows.
I assume there (I can't recall from our conversation) that you felt that I should have created some kind of Hard Choice that would have put the dog in imminent peril? At the time, that just didn't feel like that made sense so it wouldn't have been "A Move That Followed" and still honored her success (but with complication) in the Defy Danger; player gets some of what they want. If I made the old dog incoherently just bolt right for the reindeer herd or out into the dark wilderness...that basically feels like a 6- result where the player gets none of what they want.
So they hide, the Ranger loses 1 Ration in feeding the dog while they're hidden, and the Ranger loses 3 Ammo (so 1 left).
At that point, I figured that as the Ranger had given it what it wanted (Food and Security), thus fully earned the dogs trust so another Parley move didn't make sense (where a Cost would still need to be in contention). They go back to the abandoned snowy village and settle in for the night and deal with trying to communicate in the morning.
That is the best I can remember it. We can do the post-mortem again as that is typically helpful to these conversations.
I'll let you read it again and let us know what you didn't like again and what felt like Force to you.
Last edited:
Manbearcat
Legend
I think, if I recollect, you felt like any/some/all of the following should have been true:
1) The Parley 6- at the beginning should have meant that the dog was no longer available to the PC (basically from a Desperate Position in Blades terms) rather than it triggering a snowballing conflict that may have made the dog unattainable.
2) The Defy Danger 7-9 should have had a different Cost or Choice that was related to the dog being lost.
3) A Defy Danger Charisma should have been required at the end to get the dog to go back to the settlement with the Ranger (another Parley move just doesn't make sense to me as the Ranger has all the leverage and the dog should have been a willing, trust-worthy party at that point).
1) The Parley 6- at the beginning should have meant that the dog was no longer available to the PC (basically from a Desperate Position in Blades terms) rather than it triggering a snowballing conflict that may have made the dog unattainable.
2) The Defy Danger 7-9 should have had a different Cost or Choice that was related to the dog being lost.
3) A Defy Danger Charisma should have been required at the end to get the dog to go back to the settlement with the Ranger (another Parley move just doesn't make sense to me as the Ranger has all the leverage and the dog should have been a willing, trust-worthy party at that point).
What can I say? I'm a creature of habit. It wasn't meant to be a criticism of the encounter so much as it is one where I remember discussing the issue before. I have no doubt the situation that developed did so because of pure motives. To me it points out an area of weakness in DW where force and illusionism can be used by GMs that wish to use those techniques.
Many uses of force become obvious in post-mortem. I tend to agree an ill-skilled GM will be reasonably caught trying to mess with the play this way. Much like an ill-skilled GM is caught using force in other systems.
It's not just the continual use of soft moves in place of hard moves though, it is the disregarding of failures taking the gambit off the table and/or the continual attempt to reintroduce an element that previously failed. These are all mechanisms the GM can bypass to introduce content he desires.
Although I dearly want to run/play BitD, no group I'm associated with has been willing. So any criticism of the system I may have is not reliable. My general contention is the powers of scene framing and consequence assignment are capable of leading groups to exactly where the GM wishes them to go should the GM have covert intent. This can be mitigated through establishing very strong rules wrt how failures will be treated and the principle that an element can only be introduced once.
There is almost always a way to be true to failure. If there isn't, should there even be a check? The dog running off into the frozen waste followed by a pitiful yelping and the emergence of a new threat swallowing its remains would be one.
Again, I don't think you specifically attempted to apply force to the encounter. But if you were the sort of GM who would, it's a spot where the players may have been able to detect that force. Especially in the use of soft responses to hard failure and the ability to rescue the dog despite the hard failure at establishing peaceful relations.
I tend to be more... harsh? A failure removes further attempts to use that gambit and generally makes the specific opportunity pursued unreachable. The fact the Ranger failed during the Parley would have removed further non-combat opportunity with the dog unless and until the situation was completely changed.
I tend to agree with the first 2.
Or the GM could just open with
Tell the PCs what to do, give them the briefing then leave it up to them. No illusionism required.
