"Illusionism" and "GM force" in RPGing

[Lanefan]

I don't want to go too far down this rabbithole - but if player input hasn't occurred yet then it can't be nullified. Nor can it be modified. It can be instigated.

Before it occurs it can also be directed, either partially or completely, by both the specific content introduced by the GM and the (perhaps metagame) manner in which this is done; and that's where part of the issue lies.

This is what I've been focusing on ... around the DL dragon armies case - there are some different analyses going on, and probably more posts I haven't read yet, but my take is that this is not a modification or nullification of player input but nevertheless is force because it guides/manipulates towards an outcome.

I've never run DL-1 but a similar module-mandated use of Force might be the transition in the Slavers series from A-3 to A-4: the party have to be captured come what may. (great series but that one bit of it that never felt right somehow)

 

[Lanefan]

That seems likely to be a cause of dysfunctional play. For instance, if the game is fairly typical D&D and one player thinks a TPK is a loss while another doesn't, I don't see how friction will be avoided for very long.

We just deal with it.

We all, I think, would generally see a TPK as a loss*; but beneath that some see significant wealth loss or item destruction as far more of a "loss condition" than others, while others see level drain as perhaps the greatest "loss condition" and still others see PC death as being that.

All it means is that I have to make sure all three happen on a regular basis, so nobody feels left out.

* - in theory; I've only ever had one and - unrelated - none of the players involved are still active in our games.

 

[Manbearcat]

@Ovinomancer

Here is a good example I just thought of where I feel comfortable calling it Force when a GM creates metaplot/backstory that subordinates a player’s authority over their thematic conception of their PC/interests.

4e has 3 ways of earning xp:

• Passing or failing Skill Challenges (a story loss/setback or a story win...it doesn't matter).
• Defeating Monsters
• Quests

Now as of DMG2 (came out 9 months after release), these Quests are either authored entirely by a player or co-authored with the GM.

Their functionality is basically the exact same as Bonds and Alignment in Dungeon World. You make a statement about your PC and pursue it to resolution. Say you're a Sohei. You might have the following Quest:

"The Daimyo has the blood of my priesthood on his hands, even though he used surrogates to do the killing. They will be avenged when my blade finds his neck."

The essential system components/game agenda here are/is:

1) Explicitly staking out and then aggressively advocating for your thematic portfolio is fundamental to the play of 4e D&D. And its fundamentally the player's purview.

2) A GM has narration rights of situation-framing and story setback loss/complication. But there are limits. Those limits are (a) that initial situation-framing must honor (1) above along with what has come before it in the on-screen fiction and (b) the thematically-challenging material they place in front of the player must (c) be onscreen such that the player is aware of it and the stakes involved and (d) must only be the fallout of a story loss (A Skill Challenge failure or a Combat where the objective was failed).

So, back to the Sohei and the Daimyo. In this case, if the GM used his unique access to the offscreen/backstory to do something like (a) anticlimactically kill the Daimyo offscreen or (b) unilaterally (and retroactively) change the nature of the Daimyo's role so that he doesn't have blood on his hands, and either of these aren't an outgrowth of 2b>c>d above, that would have to be "Force by way of offscreen backstory/metaplot reframing of a PC's thematic portfolio (which is the player's input)."

---

Hopefully it makes sense why my take is that @Sadras 's situation in 5e is different than something like Quests and 4e. Now @Sadras 's table social contract or hack the above into his 5e game...but its not there at an elemental level, so I can only go by 5e's GMing role, the game's play priorities and authority distribution, and the general system/PC build stuff.

 

[pemerton]

back to the Sohei and the Daimyo. In this case, if the GM used his unique access to the offscreen/backstory to do something like (a) anticlimactically kill the Daimyo offscreen or (b) unilaterally (and retroactively) change the nature of the Daimyo's role so that he doesn't have blood on his hands, and either of these aren't an outgrowth of 2b>c>d above, that would have to be "Force by way of offscreen backstory/metaplot reframing of a PC's thematic portfolio (which is the player's input)."

This sort of thing is hardcore RPGing suckitude.

I think you're right that it's also force.

 

[Manbearcat]

This sort of thing is hardcore RPGing suckitude.

I think you're right that it's also force.

Yeah, not great.

The thing is, I'm sure a fair amount of time its not struggle of player:GM wills or the GM douchebaggery. I'm sure a fair amount of the time its just that the GM hasn't recognized what they've actually done.

I mean, we have "professional storytellers" in directors/screen-writers who completely destroy the "thematic winnings" (and therefore legacy) of beloved franchise characters (my first acquaintance with this was how Aliens 3 wrecked the hard-fought legacy of Ripley, my favorite character of all time, from Aliens 2...it made a hell of an impact that I'll never forget)! Its not much of a stretch for hard-working, sincere (but amateur, as we are all) GMs to screw things up in the same vein!

GMs just need to work to maintain vigilance against this and be ever-thoughtful.

 

[pemerton]

I'm sure a fair amount of time its not struggle of player:GM wills or the GM douchebaggery. I'm sure a fair amount of the time its just that the GM hasn't recognized what they've actually done.

<snip>

GMs just need to work to maintain vigilance against this and be ever-thoughtful.

Agreed it's frequently not malice. But this is why I've been saying upthread that establishing framing and consequences are two fundamental GM skills. And with your particular example it also relates to the roll of secret backstory in action resolution - another fundamental matter.

I agree vigilance is important. So is awareness of a good range of techniques and also support for understanding and developing, or sometimes thwarting, fictional trajectories. What sorts of things can help with this? AW's list of GM moves is a pretty good start!

 

[Numidius]

And with your particular example it also relates to the roll of secret backstory in action resolution - another fundamental matter.

What do you exactly mean by that?

 

[Numidius]

Before it occurs it can also be directed, either partially or completely, by both the specific content introduced by the GM and the (perhaps metagame) manner in which this is done; and that's where part of the issue lies.

Yes, a big part, in my experience. Metagame, as in OOC at the table (right?), I've seen the biggest issues: from the very session zero, not allowing backgrounds, for instance, or completely negating them in session one; to outright blocking declarations, also OOC; to putting forth more and more obstacles IC to prevent a conclusion to a scene and directing the story.

Negating outcomes once rolled is something I don't see at tables, because that would be really beyond acceptance of Players.

 

[Lanefan]

Yes, a big part, in my experience. Metagame, as in OOC at the table (right?), I've seen the biggest issues: from the very session zero, not allowing backgrounds, for instance, or completely negating them in session one; to outright blocking declarations, also OOC; to putting forth more and more obstacles IC to prevent a conclusion to a scene and directing the story.

While all valid, those aren't what I was getting at.

When I talk of directing player input before it happens, I'm referring to situations where a DM wants to elicit specific input and thus presents or narrates things in such a way as to prompt the desired response.

An example just a bit over the top to make my point: a DM who wants the party to go left at the next junction narrates reaching that junction as: "You reach a 4-way junction in the passage. Ahead and to the right >shrug< there's nothing. And >keen glance at each player< there's nothing to the LEFT either."

Now of course the players could still decide to go ahead, or right, or turn around and leave; but given the DM's narration and meta-presentation, chances are high they'll go left if only to see what he's on about.

Negating outcomes once rolled is something I don't see at tables, because that would be really beyond acceptance of Players.

Player-side rolls, yes. Negating DM-side rolls is also Force, and drags in the whole to-fudge-or-not-to-fudge debate.

 

[pemerton]

And with your particular example it also relates to the roll of secret backstory in action resolution - another fundamental matter.

What do you exactly mean by that?

By secret backstory I mean elements of the fiction that are known only to the GM - and so in at least that sense are not part of a shared fiction - but that nevertheless are used by the GM to inform the outcomes of action resolution.

Like all these things there can be complex cases and perhaps sometimes boundaries are blurred. But in @Manbearcat's example we see it at work: the GM decides, "offscreen" ie unilaterally and secretly from the players, that the daimyo is dead. Now action declarations by the player in the general direction of "I kill the daimyo" or "I take steps to bring down the daimyo" all fizzle, because the daimyo is no longer around.

I think what I've just described needs to be kept distinct from GM preparation of material to use in framing (eg something like AW fronts). Some of what can look like action declaration is, in my view, more of a device to press the GM to frame some more - eg reading a charged situation in AW, if it succeeds, requires the GM to add some more detail to the current scene and share it with the player who succeeded. And that might draw upon prep.

(Not all perception-type checks are like this: eg in BW wises are just as often, or even more often, used by a player to establish new elements of the fiction.)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I GMed a session of Classic Traveller today, continuing the Aliens meets Annic Nova scenario. As originally presented (ie in the published module Annic Nova), there is not a great deal more to this scenario than the players moving around the abandoned vessel learning backstory from the GM by performing variouis sorts of "moves" (some of which require checks, some of which are simply gated behind skill levels, and some of which have to be puzzled out by the players).

I call this sort of play learning what it is in the GM's notes., For it to be interesting, I think the notes have to be pretty damn clever and the atmosphere etc well presented also. I've encountered this as a player in CoC one-shots, I don't think the Annic Nova scenario, as published, gets over the line.

So I've adapted it in a couple of ways. There is an external source of pressure, namely, an Imperial Navy cutter investigating the vessel and the PCs' interest in it. That came into play today and was handled in the standard way we resolve social encounters ie a roll on the reaction table, with a +1 DM because the PC in question was a noble like the naval officer he was dealing with, and was being relatively charming in his blather. The modified result was a 12, ie genuine friendship, and so the officer has come on board the PC's ship but has accepted their explanation that things on the abandoned ship (the Annic Nova) aren't yet suitable for inspection by the Navy. No secret backstory was at work here (I'd prepped the NPCs, but it wasn't secret backstory eg the officer announced herself by her title - Lady Commander Askol - and my explanation of the circumstances of the reaction check, including the +1 DM, was all out in the open) .

There's also an internal source of pressure, namely, aliens (or rather Aliens) on board the abandoned vessel. Because of the way Traveller works - eg pretty old-school resolution for combat, based on position on a map or more abstract bands (but in this case we're using floor plans from the module) - there is a lot of scope for secret backstory to affect things. In the session today I handled that by using the surprise mechanics together with the encounter distance mechanics to determine who got the drop on whom, in circumstances where - to use AW terminology - the unwelcome truth of the aliens on board had already been well and truly revealed.

For other aspects of framing and so establishing possible action declarations, there were some INT checks, and a check where a bonus from EDU got the relevant PC over the line. None of this was at the AW-level of elegant narrative pressure, but I was using it to try and have the backstory come out and hence the framing established in ways that followed the established fiction (including the fiction of the relevant PCs) and tried to make the session about more than just learning what's in the GM's notes while not using the content of those notes as a secret determiner of action resolution outcomes.

That's a bit rambly but I hope makes some sense and helps illustrate some of the more abstract points in the first half of the post.