I definitely agree that framing (which is the issue with the dog’s Starting Attitude) and introducing consequences of action resolution (re-framing) are the murkiest areas of Force.
If a GM fakes setting a DC (because the entire process is GM-Facing unless the GM announces the DC before the roll) in order to block a move when a player gets a middling result, that is Force. Same goes for a Saving Throw.
However, here are my thoughts on framing of the Starting Attitude and why it’s Force:
1) The GM wants the move to fail. The players can’t know that for sure but they can only suspect that. We can know though (because we’re making this up so we can look under the hood).
2) The GM knows the Ranger has a +0 Charisma check here, so if he goes with Hostile, he nearly ensures a failed move (the Ranger would need a 20, DC 20 for Hostile, to get the dog to accompany her back to camp).
This also gets back to “lead storyteller”, “entertainer”, the action resolution being beholden to GM-facing meditation, and absolute GM authority over framing (and with lead storyteller and entertainer as their hat to wear).
With those 4 things, framing becomes a very powerful tool for Force.
Contrast it with Blades. The GMing ethos is hugely different, setting Position and Effect are transparent, table-facing procedures where conversation is encouraged, and the players are rolling all of the dice.
You literally could_not have the above scenario happen in Blades (and the game’s ethos actively pushes back against it).
The Position would never be Desperate (Hostile dog) given all of the factors involved. At most it would be Risky (Indifferent dog) but probably Controlled after all of the factors are collated.
Finally, a tangent.
I think the above is also a very strong example of how this arrangement can make for a difficult go for mundane characters in non-combat conflict resolution (particularly social conflict with characters who aren’t entirely built for it).
Consider that this should be an absolute archetypal shtick for a Ranger without Animal Friendship. This should be their wheelhouse.
However, they have to overcome 4 things to achieve the win condition of the conflict:
1) Interact with the dog in a way that is sufficient to the GM to allow for an Animal Handling check (which should give them advantage over a PC who just has Insight).
2) Achieve the AH DC to gain access to an IBF to leverage for Advantage on CHA check or change the dogs Attitude for the CHA check.
3) Deal with the GM’s authority over framing (which will dictate the ease or impossibility of the CHA check).
4) Make the CHA check.
Personally, I would think that a level 2 Ranger should succeed at this social conflict with the dog at a VERY high rate. But due to mismatch of expectations of rules and/or framing handling (even without actual Force), the % chance of success can decrease significantly and/or be turned impossible.
It gets worse if you’re just a Survivalist/Outdoorsmen Fighter without Animal Handling.
But a spellcaster needs just one failed Saving Throw (and possibly has the means to create Disadvantage on it).
@Sadras , I’ll digest your example afterwhile and give my thoughts.
@chaochou How about “during a moment of framing and/or action resolution”?
I agree the DM is being a Richard. But one can be a Richard without using force. I see force as a table technique. If we extend the hypothetical back a bit and make the dog's appearance part of a pre-written adventure with the designer assigning the hostile attitude to the dog then the DM was just portraying it as provided and I wouldn't see it as force. Dumb, probably. Possibly worth an application of force (by having the dog act more believably than the designer mandated) to correct an unnoticed flaw in the adventure design that should have been caught on an initial scan. A designer can't force though a designer can ask force be used to achieve a specific result.
For example, I don't think an adventure having an army march towards the adventurers is force. That's just part of the scenario parameters. I think having instructions to counter and nullify any attempt other than rush to the target city to avoid the army as calling for the use of force at the table.
There is a published VtM scenario that has always stuck with me that illustrates this well, I think. The PC vampires are to be ambushed by a powerful rival at a entertainment venue. The GM is supposed to arrange the opponent manages to grapple a PC near a column that coincidently has a piece of wood sticking out of it. The designer's goal is the PC will extract the wood and use it to injure/fend off their grappler. The reason is the wood is the remnants of a stake that forced an ancient vampire buried in the column into dormancy and its removal will start the actual adventure.
The adventure designer is calling for absolutely HUGE amounts of force to be used. The GM needs to negate any other (much more tactically sound) combat options: guns, claws, retreat, what-have-you. Simultaneously he needs to choreograph the fight positions and arrange the grapple to occur at one particular place on the map. AND he needs to fudge all the combat rolls to ensure the combat continues until the grapple can happen, the grapple succeeds but not too well, and the player succeeds in using the wood as a weapon.
He also needs to make sure the player sees the wood as an opportunity worth pursuing as opposed to a trap choice. This final one isn't force. It is social engineering which is another technique I strongly dislike GMs using.
As to your tangent: I agree. It was one of the let-downs I felt when I first reviewed 5e.