D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Ovinomancer]

Mate. In the example GM just forced a freaking giant bird to appear.

That's not Force. Where did the GM cause a preferred outcome to occur while ignoring player input, action declaration, or system say? I mean, it's not a preferred outcome, because the GM doesn't have this preferred over another outcome. We also aren't ignoring action declaration or the system's say. It's completely not at all Force -- it fails the definition at multiple points.

Yes. They just need to wait till the player fails at a roll (and they will sooner or later) and introduce it as a consequence.

No. If I have an idea for, say, a demon appearing, and the player is negotiating access to a restricted area and fails, when I say "a demon appears," there's going to be quite a lot of "what?" It's clearly and obviously not in line.

Now, if the access is to a gate to Hell, then we're kosher, but that's hardly the freedom you're claiming because it directly follows.

 

[prabe]

I'm not sure what you mean by "defined borders".

You can tell me after dinner.

Having destroyed the kitchen, and eaten, I shall.

I have run across the idea in discussions not in this thread, that backstory--as y'all use the term--is stuff that isn't known (knowable?) by the players when the situation is engaged in play. So anything the GM might have used as framework to hang the situation on, y'all would (I think) be inclined to call "backstory" and I'd probably think of it as "part of the situation." I think I'd probably think that, even if that framework was GM-created, and even if not all of it was player-facing. I'd probably think of those as the "defining borders."

Roughly.

Hope that at least kinda-sorta makes sense.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That's not Force. Where did the GM cause a preferred outcome to occur while ignoring player input, action declaration, or system say? I mean, it's not a preferred outcome, because the GM doesn't have this preferred over another outcome. We also aren't ignoring action declaration or the system's say. It's completely not at all Force -- it fails the definition at multiple points.

This goes into GM's state of mind. If it was their preferred outcome how would this look any different in play? That's right, it wouldn't.

No. If I have an idea for, say, a demon appearing, and the player is negotiating access to a restricted area and fails, when I say "a demon appears," there's going to be quite a lot of "what?" It's clearly and obviously not in line.

Now, if the access is to a gate to Hell, then we're kosher, but that's hardly the freedom you're claiming because it directly follows.

You frame the situation, you describe the area. You can easily make it seem natural. And if for some reason not in that exact moment, then in the next. Hell, by creating correct atmosphere you might even get the players to suspect the presence of infernal influences and make them think that introducing the demons in the narrative was their idea! (That's trickier though.) But if in fantasy milieu you want to work demons in the narrative in way that seems organic, you absolutely can!

 

[Ovinomancer]

This goes into GM's state of mind. If it was their preferred outcome how would this look any different in play? That's right, it wouldn't.

This is odd. I mean, for this to be Force, the GM would have had to have planned it and wanted this outcome -- a bird appears and threatens to attack. Note, it doesn't attack, and the game doesn't shift into combat mode because there is no such combat swoosh in Story Now games -- play continues using the same framework. The bird appears adds a new threat, a new source of hard moves to the GM's repertoire, it doesn't create a set outcome. The bird can appear, the PCs can take an action to deal with it, and the bird can be gone just like that! Or, they ignore it but nail successes and the bird just wanders around without anything to do. You seem to be viewing the introduction of the flying monster as an "aha, now you'll be forced into my combat encounter!" That's just... not what's happening.

You frame the situation, you describe the area. You can easily make it seem natural. And if for some reason not in that exact moment, then in the next. Hell, by creating correct atmosphere you might even get the players to suspect the presence of infernal influences and make them think that introducing the demons in the narrative was their idea! (That's trickier though.) But if in fantasy milieu you want to work demons in the narrative in way that seems organic, you absolutely can!

Again, you're assuming the framing is free on the part of the GM. The cliff being climbed isn't free to frame, it has to flow from prior play. But, let's ignore this. What you're trying to call Force here is the point in the game where the players have chosen to engage in an adventure that called for the framing of a climbing obstacle, and the players chose how to engage that obstacle, and they made their move, which, on a success, overcomes the obstacle. But, you want to call it Force when they players fail and the system say is that the GM gets to introduce a consequence to make the PC's lives harder, and they choose to introduce a flying monster? I mean, that's a pretty long chain of things that have to happen just so you can say it's Force for the GM, when given permission by the game, introduces a complication, not an outcome but a complication, to a scene and still has no control over the outcome reached?

Okay. I mean, I disagree and think that's an incredibly strained argument, but okay. And I say this because when I was in your shoes, and was facing this exact argument, I said the same things you're saying. Like, pretty damn close. My bit was "well, if the GM wants the game to be about demons, he can just introduce demons at every chance he gets and that'll do it." I'm slightly embarrassed by myself now that I've actually got experience under my belt both playing and running and recognize that this is just not possible without being blindingly obvious in game and also very much against the rules. I mean, sure, we can talk about degenerate play examples, but I don't think that me suggesting how you play and only using people clearly ignoring the game to do the things is going to go over well with you.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I am not disputing that in Story Now games the GM has less authority overall, but I was referring to action resolution in particular. I just feel that the player might have clearer grasp of sort of consequences their actions might have in a game where the consequences tend to be causally connected to the actions they took instead of being whatever the GM can come up!

Well, it may depend on the game some, but generally I think the consequences should clear based on the nature of what’s going on. Your assessment that the predatory bird is not causally connected is inaccurate. The climb took longer for the character whose player rolled low….allowing more time for danger to develop. A giant flying predator in a cliffside location seems pretty on brand, no?

The consequences should make sense based on the fiction.

But I think this still is one way in which GM can introduce elements they might want to 'force' in a Story Now game. Just wait for a situation where the desired element can be introduced as consequence. It will happen sooner or later. And sure, it indeed is true that in a trad game the GM can introduce new elements just because, but the claim was made earlier that in Story Now GM cannot force things they want to happen, and I think that is patently false. They can, it is just harder (and against the spirit of the game, which is the actual reason to not do it.)

I’m not gonna go so far as to say a Story Now game is immune to Force. But it’s designed to prevent Force. D&D 5e and similar games are not. They at the very least enable the use of Force, if not outright promote it.

So yeah, if a GM of Dungeon World or Blades in the Dark really wanted something to happen, they can likely apply someForce to get it done. But the ways in which they do so are very limited and it will often be incredibly obvious to the players.

If your goal is to have a “technically it’s not impossible, just really unlikely” victory, then sure. Congrats.

 

[Malmuria]

If a GM does, they're breaking the rules of play.

I don't understand this bit. I mean, I understand that there might be a social contract or expectations of play at the table, and that a gm (in any kind of game) can break that. But are you saying that there is something about the gm advice in, say, blades that makes it more binding? How?

 

[FrogReaver]

Mate. In the example GM just forced a freaking giant bird to appear.

Yes. They just need to wait till the player fails at a roll (and they will sooner or later) and introduce it as a consequence.

Yea that's basically where I'm at with that example too. How is making a giant freaking bird appear that was hitherto non-existent in the fiction not GM force.

I'd just add that GM force isn't necessarily forcing the fiction to be hyper specific. It can be about forcing a 'type of scenario'. In this case, a player gets separated a bit from the rest of the group and some creature they haven't seen before quickly attacks. On a cliff you might choose a giant bird, in a swamp you might choose an alligator, going through caves you might choose a giant worm, etc. Different fiction depending on specific location but essentially the same type of encounter - ambush on isolated target.

 

[FrogReaver]

Maybe, maybe not.

In the 3E D&D module Bastion of Broken Souls, there is explicit advice to the GM on how to introduce a "second string" NPC if the PCs kill the main adversary "early". That is not fudging any dice rolls, but it is not honouring the outcome of the combat. It's manipulating the fiction - in particular, the backstory with an eye on future scene-framing - to make sure that the pre-conceived events of the module can still be deployed.

I'm pretty sure that you are not going to find that sort of explicit advice in the BitD rulebook!

I'd disagree with that assessment. The fiction was honored - the main adversary was killed and he's not coming back. That his lieutenant steps in to his now vacant role seems rather realistic and fitting for any kind of adventure genre. *At least at a high level.

 

[FrogReaver]

So yeah, if a GM of Dungeon World or Blades in the Dark really wanted something to happen, they can likely apply someForce to get it done. But the ways in which they do so are very limited and it will often be incredibly obvious to the players.

IMO. The GM principles in such a game essentially demands the GM use force in framing and establishing the consequences of player actions (at least using the more broad definition of force).

For example, if the GM is required via GM principles in the rules to frame exciting scenes, his only method of accomplishing that is via force. He desires to pick the exciting scene - frames it appropriately and has the full power in the rules to carry this out - even if the players at that moment might have wanted the scene framed differently or even a different scene framed altogether.

This isn't exactly forcing a particular outcome, but i'd argue that most force in linear D&D isn't about forcing a particular outcome (PC's can outright fail for example). Instead most of the force even in D&D is about placing the PC's into a situation via framing (like introducing giant birds that attack them when they are climbing a cliff).

 

[Malmuria]

IMO. The GM principles in such a game essentially demands the GM use force in framing and establishing the consequences of player actions (at least using the more broad definition of force).

For example, if the GM is required via GM principles in the rules to frame exciting scenes, his only method of accomplishing that is via force. He desires to pick the exciting scene - frames it appropriately and has the full power in the rules to carry this out - even if the players at that moment might have wanted the scene framed differently or even a different scene framed altogether.

This isn't exactly forcing a particular outcome, but i'd argue that most force in linear D&D isn't about forcing a particular outcome (PC's can outright fail for example). Instead most of the force even in D&D is about placing the PC's into a situation via framing (like introducing giant birds that attack them when they are climbing a cliff).

I’m guessing it would count as Force if after a successful climb check the angry bird showed up anyway. But couldn’t the gm just frame the next scene as angry bird attack, but with the PCs on top of the successfully-climbed cliff? In dnd the climb check and the wandering angry bird would be completely separate checks, since the two are not related logically (maybe the bird gets advantage on perception or something).

In this way, I’ve never understood why you can’t speak the name of your move. I don’t think it harms the fiction for the gm to say that this is the result of an unsuccessful roll; if anything it helps make clear what the point of rolling is. The blades advice about keeping the meta channel open and talking about what you are doing and why makes more sense to me for that kind of game