Hmmm... really interesting question. I'm inclined to say "Yes." but that answer may be subtly different from what you think is implied by "coercive". For example, we'd normally think that if someone gave verbal consent or agreement that they weren't being coerced, as the normal implication of those words. But I think it's reasonable to consider the question of whether you are being manipulated. For example, con artists almost always depend heavily on the consent of their mark to all off the con. If someone chooses to give away their life savings to someone else, and is in fact eager to do so, but then doesn't realize that they are being tricked and the reward they expect to receive isn't forthcoming, was that "coercive"? Whether it is definitionally coercive or not, it's definitely not consent as we normally think of it either.
I mean, the "con" in "con artist" means
confidence trickster, as in, someone who abuses the confidence (=full trust) of another person. So, yes, by definition I would say such a person is being coercive.
And, to put my cards on the table, I have an
extremely negative view of the vast majority of coercive actions that a private person can employ against another. So...yeah. Just putting that out there right from the start.
Taking that a step further, what if an investment banker has a relationship with a client and without malice advises them to invest in a risky but potentially rewarding investment which then doesn't pan out. Was that "coercive"?
Did they carry out their fiduciary duties? Meaning, did they specifically inform that client about the risks of this investment, making clear that there was a meaningful chance of significant loss? Negligence is still a failure of fiduciary duty, and can qualify as coercive.
If this banker genuinely made the risks clear, and the client signed off knowing the risks, then no, it isn't coercive--because they knew exactly what was going on. If they made an error of judgment from their own
I can see in my head a lot of situations arising in gaming that would be just as subtle. The trouble is that a good GM is always trying their best to entertain the players, but that can easily get congruent with the thinking "The best outcome for this scene is the one that I'm imagining".
And I am of the opinion that the GM should not think that. The best outcome is the one that happens.
There are trade offs being letting go and letting things happen and letting the dice fall where they may and putting your thumb on the wheel in order to steer things toward what you see as a preferable outcome. Should I fudge to prevent a TPK isn't got the malice we normally associate with "coercion" but is still pretty coercive.
I consider it just as bad as any other form of coercion. I don't fudge. Ever. I use other techniques
which make clear to the players what's going on. That way I'm not lying to them. I'm playing with my cards face up. It's not a matter of perfection vs imperfection; I simply...don't do that thing. It's easy enough to consistently not fudge, just as (for example) it is easy enough to choose not to lie to other people IRL.
I hope that explains what I'm thinking a bit.
I mean, I guess? I refuse to run any game in a coercive way, regardless of system (currently, DW.) Yet I can still run quite effectively--I have players hoping to return after extremely well-justified need to step away.