I'm just curious and this isn't just to you. Why is it that posts like these make force sound like something bad that must be avoided (other concepts too) but I'm constantly reminded that no other playstyle is being condemned here and that we are just comparing how different mechanics work in different games?
Force is just a tool in the box. Some games live by it, some avoid it. It's pretty neutral by itself. However, it's a tool that's easily abused, and, in the worst cases, is the tool than enables very dysfunctional gameplay (like hard railroads). The post I responded to wasn't about bad gaming or a criticism of a playstyle, but instead being very clear that the tool being used in that situation was Force, specifically how it was Force where a pit trap usually isn't.
D&D uses Force, so I can see how you'd think it's a criticism of D&D, or your playstyle, or whatever. It's not. I'm prepping a 5e game for tonight right now, one we haven't played in a few months due to life and the current crazy (I got sick, other people had to take care of ill parents, I game with some police officers who haven't had much free time lately, you know, life). I'm going heavy on Force, at least at the start, because I need to re-establish the current conflicts as they were left and that setting and themes of the game, again. So, I don't have a problem with Force. If anything, my plans for kicking things back off could be considered a railroad -- at least to start. After that, after I've re-established the fictional situation again, then I'll relax back into the much more PC directed play I prefer, but, as it's D&D, Force is always in my toolbox.
On the other hand, if one of my players has to bail due to being on call, then I have Blades in the Dark standing by. We haven't played that in longer, but it kicks off with less.