Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7923775" data-attributes="member: 16814">I'm quoting the whole thing, but I really want to address your first sentence.  Sure, a GM might have an idea of how they'd like a situation to play out (I'd say that's already put things in a Forcey place, but okay), but the issue is if they change adjudication or situations to make it so.  This would then be the manipulation of the gamestate that's ignoring or modifying player inputs to achieve an outcome in line with GM preference.  I'm not a fan of [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER]'s example because the starting attitude of the dog should have been apparent to begin with.  There's already a failure of framing which frustrates the PC's inputs -- they want to find and befriend the dog but the GM is hiding crucial information on that attempt.  I'd say that this counts as a fourth instance of Force, that actually enables the next 2.  Which, by the way, without the knowledge of the dog's starting attitude, the first instance in MBC's post isn't really Force -- the GM has a hostile dog, so the DC is going to be higher to handle the animal -- a 12 won't cut it.  But, the GM should frame the situation and let the player know the difficulty of their task, at least in general terms, so this, I guess, is Force as presented.</blockquote>