"A role-playing game is what is created in the interaction between players or between player(s) and gamemaster(s) within a specified diegetic framework."
So many great comments! I've been mostly busy this weekend. but I wanted to drop in and add a few thoughts that I'm developing (either to continue this thread, or maybe at some point to make another long post). At this point, they are mostly inchoate. I apologize to anyone that responded to me or at'd me if I'm not directly responding to you.
I have been thinking about Blades in the Dark a fair amount,
@Ovinomancer given its prominence in these conversations. I was also thinking about my earlier comment re: how many things we don't think of as "force" or "railroading" because they occur either "with consent" or prior to the start of the game can still be considered as such, depending on how you look at it- see, for example, playing a module.
Now, I know what you're thinking- playing a module isn't the same as force ("DM force" or otherwise) or railroading. But if you look at threads that we've had here in the past, you'll find two types of comments:
A. Sandbox purists. Those who assert that any module etc. is a violation of player agency, isn't fun, and so on.
B. The Tomb of Horrors jerk. I kid, mostly. But there's always that guy who is like, "Yeah, we played Tomb of Horrors. DM broke it out. We walked to it. I saw it, and I walked away." I'm using that as a shorthand for those times when players "expose" what it really going on. That the use of a module (or a pre-planned dungeon, or whatever) is really a joint social decision that is usually "forced" by the DM to the players, and "consented" to by the players. Or to use non-loaded terminology, the table agrees that they will be engaging in a particular activity within the framework of the game, and the DM facilitates it, and the players play within those boundaries.
From there, I'd move to the more specific example of BiTD. Now., imagine you're sitting down to play D&D. The DM says...
"Hey guys, I've got a great campaign for you. Okay? So ... here's the deal. You're going to play as rogues. All of you. Evil ones, but, you know, the cool kind, not the evil evil kind. And you're going to play in a city. You don't really get to leave it, because that's where we are going to play. Also? I've decided that your characters are going to want to gain power in the criminal underworld. So, we good?"
Now, I'm simplifying and kind of joking, but you see where I am going with this (I hope). Much like a module, BiTD has severe artificial constraints regarding the game. We tend to overlook these because we have agreed to them, but I think it's important to understand that they are there.
@Manbearcat would probably make a distinction that this is "system force" but this type of overarching constraint fundamentally limits and changes the narrative that allows for other types of agency. To use my very tired net/adjective that I'm sure you've seen before, by so tightly limiting "choice" and "agency" in this way, BiTD allows for greater narrative freedom in other ways.
Speaking of which, one more before I have to run (also to Manbearcat-
Imagine the following system:
On success, DM must: "Yes, and."
On failure, DM must: "Yes, but."
Game provides E&E for both "yes and" and "yes but."
Player may continue after a "yes but" with "escalating consequences;" after third "escalating consequence" Player gets a "this goes on your permanent record." With E&E for that as well.
Now, is this an example of a system that allows for player agency, and constrains the DM?
Do E&E for the "and" and the "but" provide sufficient constraints?
Or does the fact that the DM can still choose to narrate any effect they want mean that it has insufficient constraints?
...I was thinking about this type of super-simplified system after MBC wrote that he appreciated having tools to help keep him from being a bad DM (I am paraphrasing). The more I think about it, though, the more I think that DMs that are incredibly concerned about these issues will necessarily ... be concerned about these issues, and seek to ensure that they are constrained, whereas DMs that are not concerned will not.
In other words, one DM could look at that system and say- that's great. Between the E&Es and the clear system, I am constrained. Another DM could look at it and say, "HA! I CAN DO ANYTHING! FEAR MY WRATH!"
Okay, enough for now.