Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7921297" data-attributes="member: 16814">I think the point in the quote, which isn't terribly clear on it's own, is that there's a difference between building out, say, a dungeon, and then letting the players wander it how they wish and building the same dungeon, but shepherding the players to the final climactic battle in the last room with the cool NPC you built.&nbsp; This is a gross example, but works.&nbsp; In the former state, the PCs will live or die according to how they act.&nbsp; In the latter, they'll find ways blocked or opened as needed to get to the end goal of the GM.You could also achieve the no-force by using many of the systems designed to create content as you play -- building on the outcomes of the last action.&nbsp; This style of play means that content is created on the fly, and often according to player inputs, and that can rub people the wrong way.&nbsp; A good example is the secret door.&nbsp; A PC meets a blank wall.&nbsp; They announce they're searching for a secret door, which is put to the mechanics.&nbsp; If they succeed, there's a secret door there.&nbsp; If they fail, there may be a secret door, but it's trapped/has monsters behind it/goes to a bad place and seals behind them/doesn't exist and guards show up/etc.&nbsp; As you might have surmised, no one knows if there's a secret door in that wall until the mechanics resolve and then either the player gets their intent or the GM thwarts it (or you get some of both, depending on if the mechanics has a range of outcome).&nbsp; This style of play really prevents all Force, mostly by making any application immediately obvious.&nbsp; &quot;I search for a secret door, success!&quot;&nbsp; &quot;You don't find a secret door, but a closet with the Boogeyman!&quot;&nbsp; &quot;Bob, darn it, we talked about this, you have to stop making everything about the Boogeyman, besides, I succeeded so there has to be a secret door here.&nbsp; Play right, Bob.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7921297, member: 16814"] I think the point in the quote, which isn't terribly clear on it's own, is that there's a difference between building out, say, a dungeon, and then letting the players wander it how they wish and building the same dungeon, but shepherding the players to the final climactic battle in the last room with the cool NPC you built. This is a gross example, but works. In the former state, the PCs will live or die according to how they act. In the latter, they'll find ways blocked or opened as needed to get to the end goal of the GM. You could also achieve the no-force by using many of the systems designed to create content as you play -- building on the outcomes of the last action. This style of play means that content is created on the fly, and often according to player inputs, and that can rub people the wrong way. A good example is the secret door. A PC meets a blank wall. They announce they're searching for a secret door, which is put to the mechanics. If they succeed, there's a secret door there. If they fail, there may be a secret door, but it's trapped/has monsters behind it/goes to a bad place and seals behind them/doesn't exist and guards show up/etc. As you might have surmised, no one knows if there's a secret door in that wall until the mechanics resolve and then either the player gets their intent or the GM thwarts it (or you get some of both, depending on if the mechanics has a range of outcome). This style of play really prevents all Force, mostly by making any application immediately obvious. "I search for a secret door, success!" "You don't find a secret door, but a closet with the Boogeyman!" "Bob, darn it, we talked about this, you have to stop making everything about the Boogeyman, besides, I succeeded so there has to be a secret door here. Play right, Bob." [/QUOTE]

Verification