Is this scene framing? Force? Narr? Silly newbie post.

[Ron Edwards]

Everyone's hugged? Good.

Emiricol, how's the whole Force issue doing for you, in this thread? Making more sense, less, or ...?

Best,
Ron

[M. J. Young]

The players feel that they drive the story, and until I started coming here I thought this was so as well, but I am realizing now that the adventures always reach the end-point I had vaguely envisioned at the start of the adventure.

See that "always"? I remember it well from my Champions GMing days. Coupled with the "but," it indicates that the GM-decisions over story-significant events in play take full power and precedence over player-decisions. That's Force.

I'm hesitant.

My problem lies in my understanding of trailblazing. I think it's a force-free technique, relatively speaking.

Think of it for a moment like a game of Mastermind--you know, one player sets up four pegs of different colors behind the barricade, and the other player tries to work out the code. The fact that I set up the code and every time you make a guess I give you feedback to tell you whether you're on the right track doesn't mean I'm forcing you to find my solution. The entire game, up front, is about our agreement that I'm going to create the puzzle and you're going to solve it.

So with Trailblazing, the referee creates the "puzzle" as an entire adventure, and the players "solve" it by trying to reach the end.

I agree that the word "always" is problematic in the statement above. However, I see at least three solutions to that problem.

One is that the word is being used hyperbolically--the players don't always wind up where the referee intended; they just do so with such regularity that the cases in which they don't aren't worth mentioning.

The second is that the referee sets extremely clear trails--simple puzzles, if you will--which the players are always able to solve quite simply. If it's easy to solve, we're not surprised that they always solve it.

The third is that he's got extremely clever players. I've had players who can solve just about any puzzle I set for them, and who are often a step ahead of me in figuring out what I designed before it's revealed. We wouldn't be surprised if brilliant players are routinely solving routine difficulty puzzles.

In none of these cases do we have any force, as I understand it. At the social contract level the players committed to figuring out the story the referee set up for them, and they repeatedly succeeded in doing so.

I agree that the fact that they always land where the referee intended is suspicious, but I don't see that it means force must be involved.

--M. J. Young

[Emiricol]

Ron, yes thank you.  I'm getting a better understanding of what these terms mean and how they apply to this situation.

In general now I'm not convinced I am doing anything that requires radical change in style since the players seem to be enjoying the experience, but I think it will be helpful for me to at least be aware of and understand the things I am doing as I DM.  There's always room for improvement, and that starts with understanding the current dynamic.

The term 'trailblazing' is new to me from this thread, though.  I'll be spending some time reading up on that concept, I suspect :)  My group has both some very creative players and I used the term "always" inaccurately.  It just happens with such regularity that I can dismiss the times it does not as being aberrations.

-Emiricol

[Callan S.]

Doesn't M J Youngs analogy explain that as well? I mean, if it were a jigsaw of a puppy, every time you put it together you always end up at a puppy.

I'm not saying the games would be like a jigsaw where everything has a specific place, bits could be put in different spots. But pretty much you'd always end up with a puppy. Perhaps slightly different, but containing a great deal of pup.

But the goal is to put the puzzle together, not create an entirely different end result. So what is in the social contract here? If it's gamist like I think the example I give here is, then force isn't a part of it unless you force them to put it together in a particular way. The actual end result is really just the means to an end...putting it together is the "end" desired, and not the means (as the temporal order might suggest).