The Forge Archives

From over in the Forge Hubris/etc II (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11758) thread:

Quote from: MarcoOn the other hand, I think that "Nar is defined by Force" as a practical matter has a lot of value. In other words, while it may not be the way to conventionally define Narrativist play, I don't necessiarily think it's a red herring at all. For someone trying to get to Nar play or by trying to differentiate between what they're doing now and what might be Nar play it's a very key question.

Good point.
I think the way it was being used in the thread we're speaking about (and then in another thread afterwards) shows a problem with understanding Force for the purposes of understanding Nar play.

The argument was made that "Narrativists don't allow anything to happen (to their characters) that they don't allow. So if something ever occurs to your character that you don't like, it's not Narrativist." This is obviously not the case. No game would be a functional Narrativist game in such an instance. That's why I found it to be a red herring there.

Force only applies to GM-directed Theme in play, not to the player's feelings about how negative or unexpected events should never occur to their character...because, frankly, that's just ridiculous. Shit is going to happen, and the shit happening does not Nar or not-Nar make.

I'm really rushed right now (have to get out the door in five minutes) so forgive the shortness of the post here, but yes/no? Thoughts?

Hmm, let me go a level deeper and see if I can make this work.

Premise: "Narrativists don't allow anything to happen (to their characters) that they don't allow. So if something ever occurs to your character that you don't like, it's not Narrativist."

To my mind, to play Nar (knowingly), you must set out to play a protagonist.  Bad things happen to the protagonist.  That's what MAKES them the protagonist.  The Nar player must embrace turmoil, trouble, and adversity

So, then, what does the nar player want?  They want their decisions to matter.  They want their character to be vital to the story, not a pawn slogging through the edges of someone else's story.  Thus, a Nar player does NOT want their choices to be meaningless or invalidated.

I think the premise is correct, if not in the way the poster meant it (I haven't seen the original, just this snippet and the description from the parent thread).  The narrativist player doesn't mind GM force (little f) in the form of aggressive scene framing or adversity being thrust upon the character.  The player DOES mind GM Force (big F) in the form of railroading.

Does this seem to match up with current theory and terminology?

Quote from: greyormThe argument was made that "Narrativists don't allow anything to happen (to their characters) that they don't allow. So if something ever occurs to your character that you don't like, it's not Narrativist."

As an argument against force, this fails, because it misses the point.

By anyone's definition, Referee Force is limited to decisions made by the referee. Failed action checks, failed defensive rolls, depletion of resources, and other aspects of play that are not within the direct control of the referee do not constitute referee force. Force may be used to impact these, and indeed referee decisions may often be directed at them (such as creating encounters specifically to deplete resources). Yet even in a game with no referee, mechanics will often dictate that something happens to the character that the player doesn't desire.

I am still inclined to think the definition of force in the glossary too narrow. What is defined there would better be stated as thematic force. Yet even by that narrow definition, things happen to the character which the player doesn't want.

--M. J. Young

Force is when the GM decides what your character does, not when the GM decides what happens to your character.  It's a way GMs block your input into the game: they take key decisions about your character's actions out of your hands.  That's straight out of the glossary.

A GM employing force might do so BY making particular things happen to your character, to which your character can respond only in the GM's desired way.  That's just one possible way, one pane in the Black Curtain.  God I loves me a metaphor.

But no, a GM can ruthlessly persecute your poor character, hound her to death and beyond, without using Force a'tall.  In fact the GM's probably doing it to provoke you to make key decisions, not block you from doing so.  Narrativist play is generally quite intense, adversity-wise.

-Vincent

I was just discussing this topic in an email with Dev, but in the context of Scene Framing.  The idea that aggressive scene framing is Force seems to pop up every once in a while, and every time Ron (and others) argue that No, No, No, scene framing is not Force.  But if it isn't, why does it feel like it to so many people?

I think the answer is that the definition of Force is somewhat dependant on CA.  In a Nar game like Sorcerer, it's only Force if it controls premise-relevant decisions.  If I use scene framing to move the characters around, I'm influencing where they go, but I'm not making premise-related decisions.  Rather I'm making the boring decisions for them, in order to "get to the bangs" and present them with the interesting decisions faster.  Although it doesn't come up in Gamism much, the analagous situation would be that it is only Force if the GM affects strategically relevant decisions.

But Sim, as in many ways, is the odd man out.  The thing that is important in Sim (whether you call it Discovery or The Dream or just the "it" of Sim), is much more broadly defined than Premise or Step on Up, which is why there has been so much debate and confusion about what Sim is.  Therefore, in Sim, a much broader range of decisions are relevant to The Dream (potentially even any decision).  So in Sim it is important to give the players control over a wider range of decisions.  I should qualify that the use of Force is only problematic to some forms of Sim, since Participationism is a fully functional sub-set of Sim that involves lots of Force.

This is just something I came up with yesterday, so I could be wrong.  I'm interested in what people who have been doing rpg theory for longer think.  I'm basically what is called "Simulationist by habit," and have only recently started experimenting with Nar in the form of Sorcerer.  I've found that even though I understand intellectually, when it comes to actual play I have a hard time letting go of my Sim habits, and the techniques of Sorcerer feel really weird to me.

QuoteThe idea that aggressive scene framing is Force seems to pop up every once in a while, and every time Ron (and others) argue that No, No, No, scene framing is not Force. But if it isn't, why does it feel like it to so many people?

QuoteForce is when the GM decides what your character does, not when the GM decides what happens to your character. It's a way GMs block your input into the game: they take key decisions about your character's actions out of your hands. That's straight out of the glossary.

Scene framing, especially in an aggressive mode, would seem to remove many choices from the hands of the players, thus the DM decides what you characters do.  (Off-the-cuff GNS analysis ahead)  Most of the discussion I've seen about scene framing has been in a Narrativist context.  I could see a Gamist player being thrown by aggressive scene framing since it seems like the GM is ramming the characters into an unfamiliar situation, probably fraught with peril which the players have no chance to avoid.  Likewise, a Sim player could see the skipping of so many choices, boring or not, as breaking the experience of play.

I would suggest that the problem isn't with the technique so much as the implementation of it.  Whenever Ron discusses scene framing, he mantions that he gets the players' approval of a scene change: "So the next day you all tromp into the woods in search of the fearsome Whoozit, is that okay with everyone?"  "No, I wanted to buy silver ammunition in case it's the rare magical Whoozit!"  "Okay, that's fine, we can handle that first."

Or am I totally off-base with your experiences?

Quote from: greyorm
The argument was made that "Narrativists don't allow anything to happen (to their characters) that they don't allow. So if something ever occurs to your character that you don't like, it's not Narrativist." This is obviously not the case. No game would be a functional Narrativist game in such an instance. That's why I found it to be a red herring there.

That wouldn't be my read of the thread. What I got from the RPG.net thread was this: the GM does *something* and the question is "was that Force?"

Player A: No.
Player B: Yes.
GM: It's what I thought "would happen"/"would be most interesting"/"would give the players what they wanted"/etc.

Who's right?

I think in functional traditional play this exact point of uncertainty is pretty much dominant making the utility of the word questionable if 'Force' is simply a key term of Player A's complaint.

-Marco

Quote from: JaikWhenever Ron discusses scene framing, he mantions that he gets the players' approval of a scene change:

That's how I play.  When I run a narrativist game, scene framing is always dependant on player approval.  In fact, I prefer the Trollbabe method, where players can request scenes.

Quote from: Jaik"So the next day you all tromp into the woods in search of the fearsome Whoozit, is that okay with everyone?"  "No, I wanted to buy silver ammunition in case it's the rare magical Whoozit!"  "Okay, that's fine, we can handle that first."

This example doesn't quite catch the spirit of agressive narrativist scene framing.  It would be more like:

GM: So the next day, you're in the woods when you hear the most godawfull, wavering cry echoing through the trees.  What do you do?"

Player 1: No, I wanted to buy silver ammunition in case it's the rare magical Whoozit!

GM: Why don't we just say you did that?  Everyone okay on continuing in the woods?

Player 2: I wanted to visit my lyncanthropic girlfriend first, where I have her secretly locked up.

GM: Ooh, yeah.  That might be cool.  So Dave is alone at the hiding place?  [Looks around table; everyone nods.]  Lucinda grabs the bars and looks at you with those big blue eyes: "Dave, how can you do this to me?"

....

Quote from: MarcoThat wouldn't be my read of the thread. What I got from the RPG.net thread was this: the GM does *something* and the question is "was that Force?"

Did you read all the comments in following threads? Such as The Forge: Why the Hate? That's exactly the argument put forth later by the same individual, and other detractors...hence, my problem with the complaint looking like a red herring, because the critic who brought it up deliberately misuses it (despite the definition being on the very page he links to), and seems to have an agenda he's using the question to fulfill (as shown by his later arguments utilizing the skewed definition to support his conclusions). Can't argue with agendas.

As to your scenario specifically...well, it's empty. There is no way to resolve the question as you've put it. WHAT did the GM do? Did it take away the player's ability to make a thematic-choice? Yes, then it's Force. No, then it isn't.

Two people arguing because they understand the term "Force" differently, or not at all, is just beside the point. It's already clearly defined. If what the GM did fits the criteria, then yeah, it is. Honestly, I'm not interested in "Is it a good term?" debates. Those debates suck egg; they're useless, non-productive wastelands.

Raven,

I wanted to say that I very much liked our last discussion on RPG.net. As someone who misued a basic term on these fora and called me on the same term with the same use in another discussion I would hope you'd be less likely to see deliberate agendas in other people's use or misuse of the jargon. Terms get 'misused' a lot here by everyone.

I have an example based on Silence of the Lambs in the thread on violation of character. Here:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11822&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15

The GM arranges a situation that the player feels takes a way a thematic choice the player wants to make.

Is it Force? If it's not, what would be a more forceful example in roughly the same scenario?

It looks to me like wherever you're sitting will determine if it's Force or not.

-Marco
edited to clarify who misused which terms

Quote from: MarcoAs someone who misued a basic term on these fora and called me on the same term with the same use in another discussion I would hope you'd be less likely to see deliberate agendas in other people's use or misuse of the jargon. Terms get 'misused' a lot here by everyone.

You'll note I say "seems" and I only say so in that case because the follow-up to it's (mis)use was so...overblown, so exaggerated. It looked (and still looks) very much to me like a deliberate attempt to discredit the term, and the theory with it based on that. Not simply a "misunderstanding" or a "confusion about what it means" but downright ignoring other basic facts in order to make some very loud and critical conclusions.

After all, "Narrativists refuse to allow anything occur in game they don't agree with," is simply not the basis of Narrativism. You know it, I know it, anyone who has read up on the basic foundation of Narrativism (or GNS) knows it. Force is a component that prevents Narrativism from happening, but it or its abscence is not the defining factor of a mode.

That is, the lack of Force does not imply Narrativism, even though its use excepts it.

QuoteThe GM arranges a situation that the player feels takes a way a thematic choice the player wants to make. Is it Force?

If the GM takes away thematic choice, or forces a thematic choice (which is the same thing), then yes.

QuoteIt looks to me like wherever you're sitting will determine if it's Force or not.

Not to me. It looks very simple to determine whether it is or isn't, not dependent on any side of any fence. After all, the GM in your example may argue that he's not removing the thematic choice, but, hey, he is, even in preserving continuity. The GM is simply refusing to create any choices

After all, he says "There are no other leads"...is that true? Fuck no. It's a game, it's imaginary. Oh, hey, look, here's another lead over there. The second problem is that you're demanding the player speak only to a Premise that he is choosing; you're assuming some sort of metagame control of events is necessary to Narrativism.

Premise does not have to be defined nor stated to be Premise, "Do I let the killer kill again because I don't want to talk to this creep, or do I talk to the creep?" or "Is my personal comfort worth the lives of others?" That's Premise, too.

Quote from: greyorm
Not to me. It looks very simple to determine whether it is or isn't, not dependent on any side of any fence. After all, the GM in your example may argue that he's not removing the thematic choice, but, hey, he is, even in preserving continuity. The GM is simply refusing to create any choices

After all, he says "There are no other leads"...is that true? Fuck no. It's a game, it's imaginary. Oh, hey, look, here's another lead over there. The second problem is that you're demanding the player speak only to a Premise that he is choosing; you're assuming some sort of metagame control of events is necessary to Narrativism.

Premise does not have to be defined nor stated to be Premise, "Do I let the killer kill again because I don't want to talk to this creep, or do I talk to the creep?" or "Is my personal comfort worth the lives of others?" That's Premise, too.

I'm interested that it looks so clear cut to you. Your three paragraphs suggest different things to me.

1. Vincent states that preserving continuity is vital to all CA's and I agree. I would say that any sense of story would be broken for me if, as another player, the Agent Starling character, introduced to Lecter at the moment of crisis where the entire FBI is badly stymied and chancing a desparate plan was able to walk off the site and find a clue down at the local diner.

Is it your contention that the GM in a Nar game is held responsible to make any action by the PC's work out? Or is it just consistency that should be sacraficed?

And what about consequences--even dire ones? I think that'd be key to Nar play (it certainly is key to my play, Nar or not).

2. But your second and third paragraphs hit home even more: when a GM "uses Force" are we talking about the Premise the GM sees or the one the player sees?

I'd assumed that both player and GM saw the same premise in this situation (choice of father figures and issues surrounding that). But if the player sees a different premise then, indeed, the event might not appear to be force to her.

Given your examples: is it possible that observer A might see the GM limiting options in choice of which father figure the agent aligns herself with and Observer B might see the GM setting up a premise surrounding personal comfort and the lives of others?

It would seem entirely possible since both are fully present in the situation and therefore both premise and force are in the eye of the beholder as I see it.

-Marco
[ Btw: on the RPG.net Game Design thread you'd said that if I took offense at your dialog you'd address that. When you say I'm "you're demanding the player speak only to a Premise that he is choosing" I find that needlessly aggressive.

I'm postulating that they are addressing a given premise. I'm certainly not demanding anything. If you want to speculate (as you do) that they address different premises that's fine as well--we can look at that.]

I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that the term Force needs to dry up and go away.  Or at the very least be shelved for the time being.

I've not seen a term get used so many different ways and get so many people tied up in huge knots over minutia and trivium in a long time.

At the very least, there should be some sort of decision to limit the term to the original use as described in the glossary and quit looking for Force under every rock and tree.

I swear if I see one more person go through the "But that's clearly Force and the essay says Force destroys Narrativism" song and dance I'm going to electronically explode.

Quote from: MarcoBtw: on the RPG.net Game Design thread you'd said that if I took offense at your dialog you'd address that. When you say I'm "you're demanding the player speak only to a Premise that he is choosing" I find that needlessly aggressive.

Sorry, I agree, that was a bad choice of words on my part.
What I was trying to say (badly) was that your argument only examined the player addressing his own chosen Premise, rather than any Premise that might arise in play, and thus arguing that not choosing to react to his chosen Premise somehow creates Force was a mistake.

QuoteVincent states that preserving continuity is vital to all CA's and I agree. I would say that any sense of story would be broken for me if, as another player, the Agent Starling character, introduced to Lecter at the moment of crisis where the entire FBI is badly stymied and chancing a desparate plan was able to walk off the site and find a clue down at the local diner.

Unh, keep in mind I've never seen the movie, never read anything about it (nor do I really have any desire to...it's way into my "ick" category), so all that plot exposition is news to me.

Still, I have to say: what makes you think the clue would be down in the local diner? Why can't working the beat prove to be a dangerous, frustrating, harrowing experience? Since it is established that no other leads are available, why wouldn't the player have to work at it to uncover something, go the extra mile, and/or get that lucky break?

In fact, if that's the way the movie had been written -- agent works the streets, finds nothing but dead end leads, then stumbles across the necessary clue -- would we even be discussing this? Because that scenario sounds like half the cop movies I've ever seen (and I'm not talking about B-grade movie plotlines, either).

The only real problem I'm seeing in the given situation is not one of continuity being failed, but one of the GM's ego, in forcing there to be one way in which events can unfold, which isn't even about setting or situational consistency/continuity.

QuoteIs it your contention that the GM in a Nar game is held responsible to make any action by the PC's work out? Or is it just consistency that should be sacraficed?

No, it's my contention that the GM in any game is held responsible to make any action by the PC's "work out" -- that is, not be successful, but provide interesting, charged, and forward-moving events.

That means if they say, "Screw this! I'm working the street for information," the GM should react to that, instead of, "No, that won't work! Stick to my plotline! Or else!" and provide the best experience he can for the player. Claiming that there's only one way it can go down is nothing but a defense of railroading.

QuoteAnd what about consequences--even dire ones? I think that'd be key to Nar play (it certainly is key to my play, Nar or not).

Aren't the dire consequences already set-up? While she's working the case on her own, another family is killed?

QuoteBut your second and third paragraphs hit home even more: when a GM "uses Force" are we talking about the Premise the GM sees or the one the player sees?

Premise doesn't have to be seen/verbalized, or even known about, in order to be addressed. I cite Vanilla Narrativism here. So whether the GM sees one Premise and the player sees another is a non-issue, or perhaps a seperate issue. Whichever, I don't see it is as relevant at all to the point at hand because who sees what Premise isn't an issue.

Is the GM forcing thematic-choices upon the player, preventing the player from making thematic choices? Yes? Force. Making them make thematic choices other than the thematic choices they were wanting to (but still allowing choice)? Yes? Not Force.

QuoteGiven your examples: is it possible that observer A might see the GM limiting options in choice of which father figure the agent aligns herself with and Observer B might see the GM setting up a premise surrounding personal comfort and the lives of others?

Once again, you're talking about control of events, of setting or situation here. This is why there is not both Premise and Force in the situation, because it isn't even the same issue. There's still Premise in there, maybe not the one everyone is "seeing" or wanting to address, but there's Premise and the choice is still in the hands of the player. This is plain old Vanilla Narrativism. As such, there no problems with Force here.

Raven,

I find the idea that you think the issue is the GM's ego interesting. From my perspective it's the GM's sense of contunity: the GM in my example says, essentially, "well, let's talk about this: what'd I miss? You have any good ideas?" If no one has a brilliant or unexpected idea about how to break the case then I, as the GM, would be inclined rule that other avenues would be comparatively ineffectual in saving lives. It might be fun or intense--but if the player cared about saving lives then they'd have to make that particular choice.

I'd assumed Silence was pretty well in the pop culture which is why I used it: the begining of the movie is a desparate situation for the FBI. Given the story as Thomas Harris wrote it, while there might be some other clue involved, I, as the GM, would consider the most likely consequence of the agent not following the only lead currently available to be the death of the person they're trying to save (it's not a family, actually, I mixed my Thomas Harris books, it's a Senator's daughter in Silence, a family in Red Dragon).

Essentially this is where your argument breaks down for me: I can't think of anything outside of pure hard and fast "the plot comes down from heaven and makes you do X" as the sort of thing that prevents the player from making *some* thematic choice.

Therefore I presently appears to me that either Force is another name for railroading or it's purely a perception on the part of the player.

As you pointed out, when the GM does 'whatever' a player who thinks their thematic choice was taken away will see it as Force, IMO. The GM may see a vista of other premises or other spectrums of choice will think it's Not Force.

I don't see how anyone could be objective about it.

I'm not sure what you came away with from the example: was it Force or not?

Yes: The premise the player was operating under is restricted by powerful negative consequences as per the GM's action.

No: There are other premises available that are not constricted by that action.

No: The consequences are only that. The player can choose to live with them.

-Marco

Quote from: greyormit's my contention that the GM in any game is held responsible to make any action by the PC's "work out" -- that is, not be successful, but provide interesting, charged, and forward-moving events.

That means if they say, "Screw this! I'm working the street for information," the GM should react to that, instead of, "No, that won't work! Stick to my plotline! Or else!" and provide the best experience he can for the player. Claiming that there's only one way it can go down is nothing but a defense of railroading.

Here is where your argument falters, it seems to me.

First of all, what if the idea of working the street makes no sense in context?

Quote from: greyormhe says "There are no other leads"...is that true? F*** no. It's a game, it's imaginary. Oh, hey, look, here's another lead over there.

Why?  What about believability?

Furthermore, the game master is responsible for starting the tale and for playing all the NPCs.  But a game master is not a superhuman but just another gamer.  What if he can't imagine a possible lead in the street regardless of the player's insistence that he find one there?

By your words, for the game master to advise against working the streets is Railroading, and for the game master to simply let the player be bored (somethings the most realistic outcome, but as you point out, f*** no it's all just imaginary) is Railroading, and for the game master to tell the player, "I have no idea what you could do there" and thereby allow peer pressure against the player for stalemating the campaign would be a form of social Railroading.  So really the only thing left for the game master at this point is to quit the game.  Either get up and leave the campaign or beg the player's indulgence for a to-be-continued-next-week hiatus.

But let's assume that the game master by himself or with input from all the other players is able to come up with any improvisation necessary to avoid the scarlet letter A for Railroading.

Since it's your contention that the game master is responsible to make any action by the PC's "work out" or else he is Railroading, how is the game master or anyone ever to curb introduced nonsense or absurdities?

By your words, if the player in a serious modern detective drama says, "Screw this! I'm finding a faerie circle to ask the local leprechauns for information," the game master should react to that or he is Railroading by insisting that realism (or detective drama verisimilitude) is the one and only way it can go down.

Now, I realize you are not arguing for such absurdities.

But thus far, your words allow no means by which the game master can fulfill her or his obligations to the other players to avoid the intrusion of such absurdities in the campaign.

Doctor Xero

Quote from: MarcoI find the idea that you think the issue is the GM's ego interesting. From my perspective it's the GM's sense of contunity

You're presuming that the only possibility for the game to unfold "correctly" in this situation is exactly as you've stated, with no room for other options or twists to the plot? And that any deviation from the set "understanding" that the jailed criminal is the only source of information is thus "breaking continuity"? Do I have that right?

What if Jimmy, the killer's cousin who suspects something but hasn't gone to the police yet because he's scared (and because he wasn't a part of the script), the agent notices keeps turning up in photos at the crime scenes, tracks him down, and he spills to her? Is that "breaking the continuity"?

Help me out here, because I'm not seeing how continuity would be broken or how it would be a "plot from heaven," when it looks like a just a regular old plot-twist standard in every bit of literature?

Now, as Xero points out, what if the GM can't think of anything and the players can't either? As I said, if a player makes choice A, the player deals with consequences of choice A. If the player can make a choice about an issue, even a suboptimal one that results in more problems or leads to nothing, then how is it Force?

But that's not really Marco's argument...he's saying the player will complain that "the thematic choice I wanted to make isn't optimal for me" or "that's not the theme I want to explore" and thus call Force. But I simply don't see the hypothetical player being presented as having any ground to stand on regarding that call -- I don't see how a thematic statement being made (a choice) that results in consequences the player doesn't want isn't Narrativist? It's not like addressing Premise has anything to do with choice of that Premise or the outcome -- Premise asks "which is more important?" and "which consequences do you want to live with?"

I'm thinking that when the consequences are a foregone conclusion, particularly on the GMs part, then its Force. That is, the game Premise being riffed on is "Is breaking the rules worth it?" and the GM decides that if you stick it to the man, you will always end up in a losing situation.

And if Ron is reading this, I'd like to see some examples of Typhoid Mary in action, please, espeically as to how the game situation being discussed would be played out among such a group. What behavior would tip everyone off that Typhoid Mary was present?

I think that force in narrative games is sometimes necessary to provide a coherent narrative.

I think I am, arguably, a narrative gamer.  I have pretty much all the secondary characteristics of a narrative gamer and it would be very easy to hang premises on the games I run.  And in several of my games I've had situations where one player wanted to intrepret something one way and other players wanted to intepret it another way.  There'd literally be four people going, "No, the prophesy says this" and one guy saying, "No, the prophesy says this other thing."  What was I as a GM supposed to do?  Because the prophesies in this game were thematic, a decision had to be made.  There was, really, no way I could resolve the situation without using force.  I don't think this invalidates the game from being narrativist.

This happens pretty frequently in games I run.  Recently, I was making a campaign map with my players -- y'know, I did that thing where I did some real rough things and then allowed the players to fill in the blanks; worked wonderfully -- but one of the players really wanted to dominate the show.  He wanted everything to go his way.  I had to cut that off; I had to stop him from dominating the map making.  So I did.  I used, pretty nakedly, force on him (I said that while I appreciated his enthusiasm, everyone needed to have an equal share in creating the world for the project to be considered legitimate by all the players -- he accepted that gracefully).  Since the premise of the game is, roughly, "What will you do for power" -- and the players have already conquered one country -- a lot of premise and theme was caught up in the making of this map.

And if this isn't force, well, what is it?

Raven,
I totally see your point about the cousin showing up with a new clue. It's feasible. No argument.

Why it doesn't work for me is that if I'm committed to Virtuality play then I, as the GM, have already determined that the cousin isn't on the NPC-map of players getting ready to show up.

The situation is pre-imagined.

Now: not all of it may be pre-imagined. Certianly if the PC's call random numbers in the phone book and ask for clues the NPC's they call will be created "on the fly"--why not the cousin?

The reason is that the situation, pregnant with human-interest issues, is already, by the GM, invisioned as mostly whole. If the player deduces that logicially there must be a clue where the GM didn't "have one" and the GM agrees the player is correct then the clue will exist.

But a player's desire to find another solution alone doesn't, IME, factor into this kind of thinking. It's a form of play that does take the risk of being frustrating but doesn't have what I'd see as a sort of safety valve that prevent me from ever choosing a poor choice of action.

So while you're not completely wrong that such a character (an NPC yet to come forward) might exist later in play but not before (and that's a very good point) the way that the player will get there in Virtuality as I understand it will be to evolve it out of in-game causes rather than from a mutual desire by the player and GM to make things work.

This is a different social contract than the one you are proposing. It might be one more oriented towards Sim. It might just be a fidelity issue. I can't really say. I do know that it doesn't, as stated, prevent the address of premise. I'm not sure it truly restricts it. It might mean that in Vincent's words what kind of character is "fit" is simply tighter in this play (more work is necessary to make a character fit).

Quote from: greyorm
But that's not really Marco's argument...he's saying the player will complain that "the thematic choice I wanted to make isn't optimal for me" or "that's not the theme I want to explore" and thus call Force. But I simply don't see the hypothetical player being presented as having any ground to stand on regarding that call -- I don't see how a thematic statement being made (a choice) that results in consequences the player doesn't want isn't Narrativist? It's not like addressing Premise has anything to do with choice of that Premise or the outcome -- Premise asks "which is more important?" and "which consequences do you want to live with?"

Is it your conclusion that, if, in the scenario I posited, even if the GM does *not* invent a cousin to keep the game moving that it isn't Force?

Note: this isn't meant to be some kind of trap. I'm really not sure where you stand. I *think* I know where I stand but I'm still considering.

Final Note: I would find that a GM who concluded that sticking it to the man would always cost me no matter how well I stuck it to be railroading. It might be hard to prove but I'd consider it toxic if I finally decided that was what was being done. Maybe, just for me, Force = Railroading?

-Marco

Marco--I think that as the definition stands, all "Force" is "Railroading", but not all "Railroading" is "Force". That's because Force seems to have been singled out as a term to mean railroading within a narrativist context.

I'm finding this discussion fascinating. At some point, we've got the problem:

Referee has set up a scenario in which the only possible way to solve the crime before the next victim is killed is for the player character, who has issues with father figures, to talk with the serial killer who will attempt to take advantage of those issues.[/list:u]
And then it becomes complicated by a choice made by the player:

The character will not enter into discussions with the serial killer because the player doesn't want to address those issues that way.[/list:u]
Now the problem is that the only way the referee has created to solve the problem is the one thing the player refuses to do.

Some have proposed that the player's character decision to look for clues elsewhere ought to be rewarded, that the referee should invent something else that can be discovered. That's certainly a valid way to play. On the other hand, it was part of the setup of this particular situation that there are no other clues. Even if there were "one person who knows something", calling people at random to try to find him, from a certain perspective the odds against doing so recall that line from The Phantom--"Every movie is permitted one incredible coincidence, and this is ours." Major cities in the U.S. have populations measured in millions. That's a lot of phone calls before you've reached one chance in a hundred that you hit the right one; and then, this guy who has been afraid to come forward is suddenly going to spill his guts to some tired police detective making his thirty thousandth random phone call looking for clues?

We've definitely got a clash here. The referee has specifically set up a scenario about the player character relating to the serial killer; that's what this story is about. The player doesn't want to play this story. Neither wants to say, "forget this, let's do something different".

The answers are intriguing. Let me suggest that every answer given so far is correct within its context; not all of them result in successful play.

--M. J. Young

MJ,

I'm thinking on the Force and railroading thing. I'm not certain I agree yet because I'm not sure who gets to make the call and under what circumstances. Raven's example of the GM who decides 'the man' always wins is a good clear one--but it seems extreme and, more over, it seems that to work the examples would *need* to be extreme.

One might also say "Fighting the Galactic Federation army is always a losing move ... unless you really fight smart." In this case the GM is simply presenting a powerful army--but not a complete thematic restriction.

The definiton says 'control over the player's thematic decison.' I don't know if that means complete control or just a lot of restriction (i.e. controlled substances are still used ... just in a controlled manner).

I think the key point with the player and the GM in the serial killer case is this: talking to Lecter is not a *conclusion* in and of itself. Sure, Lecter knows who the killer is and if sufficiently enticed, he'll tell.

But how Starling reacts to Lecter is up to her. He plays the role of a father figure who is (bizzarely) more sympathetic to her than the FBI and the rest of the criminal investigation/governmental teams (who sorta wish she didn't exist mostly).

Ultimately she can decide to use him, side with him, trick him, etc. She might decide: screw it--he kills people who need to be killed' and let him out (this did NOT happen in the story).

But it's not a conclusion.

Even though the ultimate goal is fairly narrow (setting him free would be extreme, mostly he either talks or doesn't talk based on how well Starling and he get on) but the how of getting there is the answer to the question of premise.

I think the GM *is* restricting thematic choice (I think that's Force) by having a situation that the player must play ball with or suffer dire consequences.

In the controlled-substances read it's Force and not antithetical to Narrativism (IMO).

In the complete control read it's not Force (IMO).

As I said, I've never known a case where a player was highly emotionally invested in a story-wise outcome and was denied that by a GM's use of the game system to hijack their character and had it be functional. And I mean this in the sense of concluding the event--not just using, say, a failed Cowardice roll to raise the stakes."

I've seen several cases where it wasn't functional. I've seen several cases where the character hijack was not related to what the player was really involved in (okay, yes, my thief is forced to flee the orks but, hey, we knew that--he's still doing this other thing the player really cares about).

But I've never seen what I'd call Force in an area of player interest that was functional. It's always been railroading there.

-Marco

Quote from: M. J. Young
The answers are intriguing. Let me suggest that every answer given so far is correct within its context; not all of them result in successful play.

I can't see that at all.  If thew GM has set up a situation such that only one sequence of actions will achieve a result nominated as Good, then we have straight Sim at best, railroaded at worst.  I can't see any Narr in the scenario at all.

Lets take the summary you gave of the initial condisitons:

QuoteReferee has set up a scenario in which the only possible way to solve the crime before the next victim is killed is for the player character, who has issues with father figures, to talk with the serial killer who will attempt to take advantage of those issues.

First question: why do we care if the crime is solved before the next victim is killed?  Maybe a suitably premise-laden moment that renders the story Meaningful to the participants will only appear after the next victim is dead. "Damn, if only I'd be willing to speak to X, Bobby would still be alive" might be the final scene.  For players gorrving on the challenge of solving the mystery, that might consititute a failure, but it would seem a perfectly viable Narr outcome.

Second question: Who's decided all this father figure stuff in the first place?  Is this player authored?  I can't see how because the player is presented as being unaware how important this factor is to the expected course of the plot.  And PLOT it is, not premise or even theme.

I see no premise being addressed by the player; the player HAS to go through certain gates, they have to visit lector for some reason, they have to get info out of him for some reason.  All these are proposed as part of the GM's restriction - where is the Narr play at all?  This example is in fact a discussion of Sim as far as I can see; the player is jumping through hoops, not giving their own interpretation of premise, as long as there is a desired outcome and a desired route by which it is achieved.  ANY outcome of this situation should be a Good outcome from Narr prerspective if premise was addressed, regardless if the next victim is saved.

Quote from: contracycle

Quote from: M. J. Young
The answers are intriguing. Let me suggest that every answer given so far is correct within its context; not all of them result in successful play.

I can't see that at all.  If thew GM has set up a situation such that only one sequence of actions will achieve a result nominated as Good, then we have straight Sim at best, railroaded at worst.  I can't see any Narr in the scenario at all.

Contra,
I'd assume the following genesis of the situation: the player makes a character which is described as having important father-figure issues and has a situation where her wish to "impress" the FBI is important (but not all-consuming or over-riding). This is contrasted to heavy gender issues where her status as a female agent is causing her problems.

These themes are very prevalent in the books. I think it'd be easy for a player to set that up.

The GM creates a human-interest laden situation where he introduces another father figure who is both at odds with her present (but toxic) FBI-father figure and is both more sympathetic and deeply more toxic (in a sense--in the book he was the one who gave her the best advice and saw her most clearly).

The GM has set up a situation where in order to solve the crime it's pretty much necessary to talk to him.

However, it's the player who decides solving the crime is "good." The player can (and does) decide it's not worth dealing with the creepy Lecter to do so--but then complains of railroading when the GM says he sees no other good solution to the save-the-life problem.

From a premise perspective the important element of play (and this is stated in the example) is the address of father figure issues. In my hypothetical both the player and the GM feel that is of paramount importance (see the thought description of the player).

When the player wants to save the life as well, that creates a conflict within the mind of the player (possibly/IMO what Vince refers to as an un-fit character).

Might be Sim. Might be Nar. But I submit that both players are premise focused. Both are focused on the same premise. And the point of disagreement is not whether premise can or cannot be addressed but whether the player can address the premise in the way they want and get the outcome they want as well.

-Marco

QuoteThese themes are very prevalent in the books. I think it'd be easy for a player to set that up.

Possibly so, but you're not telling me what the players interest is here.  Some players might find these things significant in their own right, to others they no be more signifcant than the characters graduation plaque from starfleet academy.

Quote
The GM has set up a situation where in order to solve the crime it's pretty much necessary to talk to him.

Fine, but solving the crim is unimportant; the crime is only significant because it produces an opportunity which arise to address of premise, if this is Nar play.  Its also unimportant if its Sim play, becuase the world will be Simmed regardless.  So solving the crime - from the players perspective - is only likey to be an issue for Gamists.

Quote
From a premise perspective the important element of play (and this is stated in the example) is the address of father figure issues. In my hypothetical both the player and the GM feel that is of paramount importance (see the thought description of the player).

The fact that the player has generated these details is not indicative that they believe this to be a major issue any more than taking an Enemy disad in most systems is a request explore Enmity; its more usually a request to explore Challenge.

And seeing as the player then moves to NOT address this premise, its hard to see why we should think that in the players view, this premise is important.  In being engaged primarily with solving the crime, it seems to be either Sim exploration of character, or gamist challenge.

Quote
When the player wants to save the life as well, that creates a conflict within the mind of the player (possibly/IMO what Vince refers to as an un-fit character).

I say not - thats indicative of a style clash IMO.  Why does the PLAYER want to save the victims life?  The victim is just a fictional character.  What the player has generated here is a PC who saves other people - surely that must be Gam or Sim.  I can't see why this restriction even undo the death of the victim frustrates narratvist addressing of premise - premise will be addressed regardless of the outcome of the action of play.  As mentioned before, if the player does want to explore these issues speicifcally, in premise terms, then failing to save the victim will proivide just as good a an answer as doing so.  Either result will pass a commentary on the individual and the situation.

Quote
Might be Sim. Might be Nar. But I submit that both players are premise focused. Both are focused on the same premise. And the point of disagreement is not whether premise can or cannot be addressed but whether the player can address the premise in the way they want and get the outcome they want as well.

Right, but IMO the second question is a red herring, becuase the scenario given does not leave us in any confidence that both players are playing Narr and focussed on premise.  Not me anyway; I see nothing Narr-like in this setup.  Even if the player is playing Narr with an attention to address premise, then the GM's imposition of a restriction, a Challenge, is innaporpriate.  If the GM is "playing Narr" by trying to construct an emotion conflict which will compel the player to address premise, then the player is declining to by NOT giving an answer to premise but instead engaging with Challenge, i.e. striving to circumvent the Situation.  This looks like a bog-standard stylistic clash between the players to me.

Contra,

I state that the player sets out to examine father-figure issues through play (phrase as a question as wanted). That sounds suggestively Nar but not definitively so.

I'm also postiting in the situation that the player does care about in-game events, feels some sense of sympathy for the NPC's and other PC's, and has a concept of character that she doesn't want to violate (which Nathan thinks is pure Sim but I think Vincent disagrees). When push comes to shove, I'll grant that the player will re-con the character to follow Premise but would prefer not to (as per Chris Edwards--it won't be a tragedy but it'll be a bit of a hiccough in play).

I can't tell you if that's a set up for Nar or not, though.

You're making a string of interpertations that I don't agree with.

I think depending on who your enemy is tells me what you want to explore (first order of business: "Contra, who is your enemy and how do you clash?" If you tell me you and the enemy love each other but have presently irreconciable differences in additon to deep feelings then I think enminty rather than challenge is on the table).

The system doesn't go one way or the other for me: it's up to the participants.

I find your take on the player wanting to save lives pretty interesting too. The player wants to save the life of the victim: maybe it's a "secondary goal." Maybe the player wants a "happy ending" to the story. The idea that Narrativist guys don't care about saving the victim per-se is prehaps a vaild interpertation but it doesn't sound like the one Vincent is using to me.

If it's true that no Nar player would care about who lives or who dies in such an in-game situation (save as it revolves around the statement they've set out to make--and only for purposes of that statement) then that's enlightening. To me it looks like what I've seen referred to as raising the stakes, however (which is surely appropriate to Nar as well as Sim).

Now: I agree that this player wants to have her cake and eat it too--which may be the issue. The cost for addressing premise in her chosen fashion will be a negative consequence in terms of the in-game continuity.

I can accept that as an interpertation Nathan's discussion of Nar (that the Nar player will never feel *sympathy* for the victim--but will only see the victim as a tool for premise ... or will feel sympathy, but won't act on it to try to save them in-game)--but I wouldn't expect it to be that simple in Vincent's (a player who is in an IC state of mind will, IMO, likely want to save the victim).

Raven, for example, would like the GM to keep forward moving action which allows for the victim to be save by way of introducing a new NPC (for example--and I think that from some social contracts it's an entirely reasonable and positive request). Does that make his priorities Sim?

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoWhy it doesn't work for me is that if I'm committed to Virtuality play then I, as the GM, have already determined that the cousin isn't on the NPC-map of players getting ready to show up.

Sorry, I'm out of touch, I need to look up Virtuality...er, it's not in the glossary. I'm assuming that's because it was recently coined. Could you summarize what it is for me?

QuoteIt's a form of play that does take the risk of being frustrating but doesn't have what I'd see as a sort of safety valve that prevent me from ever choosing a poor choice of action.

"Poor" isn't really what I was getting at regarding the social contract I mentioned. You could have bad, icky, terrible, "not what I wanted, damnit!" results without being frustrated because nothing happened.

False leads providing fleeting and quickly dashed hope, exciting chases through the underbelly of society that ultimately result in nothing more than the realization: I am going to have to deal with these father-figure issues and work with this criminal if I want to get anywhere on this case.

QuoteIs it your conclusion that, if, in the scenario I posited, even if the GM does *not* invent a cousin to keep the game moving that it isn't Force?

Ack...too many negatives!
Ok, basically, I believe that whether or not the cousin is created (or whether or not another way to introduce the clue is inserted) is irrelevant to Force. It could be either.

I'm thinking the following: in Narrativist play, it behooves the GM, it is part of his portion of the Social Contract, to provide and present moments of thematic-choice for the players, without enforcing any particular thematic choice as the only or correct option.

For example, let's take a game I recently ran: thematic choice time came about: do they kill the medusa, or let her live? The medusa is a cursed empress, and so of royal blood -- it is immoral and legally punishable to spill royal blood, not to mention spiritually corrupting.

If I stop the game right then and describe the results without player input (ie: "the other guards stop you"), or interject an NPC right then who stops the player from killing the bitch, then I've just made thematic choice for the player, or stopped them from making thematic choice, or even a meaningful choice.

Let's say that the medusa's blood is necessary to turn everyone back from stone, but they don't know if the medusa needs to be alive or not. I change things so that the decision is ultimately meaningless: whatever they do, whichever choice they make, the blood can be used, or some other Deus Ex Machina enters play that restores the stoned characters to life, regardless of the player's decisions.

That's Force? (I'm thinking so.)

QuoteMaybe, just for me, Force = Railroading?

We agree on that. Force seems to be a specific application of Railroading as it pertains to disrupting Narrativist play.

Hi Raven,

I've looked at your latest post--and re-read some of the other posts in this thread and while I agree with a lot of what you're saying, I'm still not clear where you stand: I don't fully understand the medusa example.

I think it's maybe a very good example that gets to the heart of the matter.

1. If the GM decides ahead of time if the medusa needs to be alive but the players and characters don't know the answer and the players kill her (thus condeming the player's attempt to faliure) then is it not Force because the GM, while having a single good outcome in mind didn't force anything?

2. If the GM runs a combat with the guards and they stop the characters is that Force if the GM runs it "fair?" Does it matter if "fair" is overwhelming or not (the medusa has been described as being defended by 70 elite warriors in glittering magical armor--a force the PC's would not reasonably expect to defeat).

More importantly: is there any reason to think that people on either side of the GM's screen (or an observer) would see this the same way? Certainly an observer can't know if it hasn't been established in the game world if the medusa needs to be alive or not (only the GM can know)--but in the case of number two where a choice that the PC's might take is somewhat blocked (the PC's can use treachery and guile to kill her. The PC's can negoitate for a vial of her blood. The PC's can go and petition another armed force for help and siege the palace. Etc.) is that "force" because the choice the PC's wanted (deadly combat) is difficult?

And: what'd you decide before hand and ultimately do in your game?

-Marco

Quote from: greyormSorry, I'm out of touch, I need to look up Virtuality...er, it's not in the glossary. I'm assuming that's because it was recently coined. Could you summarize what it is for me?  

"Virtuality" is a synonym for rgfa Simulationism, which was coined by Ben Lehman in his thread Subtyping Sim thread a few weeks ago.  I picked up using it because it was less confusing than going back and forth between "rgfa Simulationism" and "GNS Simulationism", and I thought it was at least fair as a term for rgfa Simulationism.  

You can read more about rgfa Simulationism on my Threefold Model page at http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/ .

Forgive my ignorance... but wouldn't Force in Nar be when the GM allows one Premise to addressed in only one way? In the Lector example, Starling's player has a choice, address the father-figure issue or don't, but that raises another Premise, is not speaking to Lector worth more victims?  So, the player can elect the to address the Premise in the way the GM has in mind or he can switch and address another Premise.  The only time GM Force would be present is when only one Premise is present and there is only one way of addressing it...

Premise, I presume...

Jonathan

Quote from: ErrathofKoshForgive my ignorance... but wouldn't Force in Nar be when the GM allows one Premise to addressed in only one way? In the Lector example, Starling's player has a choice, address the father-figure issue or don't, but that raises another Premise, is not speaking to Lector worth more victims?  So, the player can elect the to address the Premise in the way the GM has in mind or he can switch and address another Premise.  The only time GM Force would be present is when only one Premise is present and there is only one way of addressing it...

Premise, I presume...

Jonathan

I don't know. That's why I was asking. It seems to me that any time a player's actions don't bear the fruit the player wanted it may be/be seen as force. If the player is just outright denied then it's something like Raven's example (clear cut). If the GM intentionally manipulates things behind the scenes to repress thematic actions then it's less obvious but still, IMO, clear cut--but if the GM rules the action doesn't bear out for reasons not related to theme or premise then what?

-Marco