Force, feeding techniques and scene framing

[Tomas HVM]

Walt Freitag wrote:
I'm one of the Forge's most outspoken advocates and (if I do say so myself) innovative practitioners of high-Force techniques. I'd love to participate in discussion such techniques with you, especially because they also relate to my work in computer games and other interactive media where the limitations of the media necessitate a high degree of Force in order to have any measure of "story aesthetics" in the outcome.

I have experiences with four different forms within roleplaying games:

Postal roleplaying is quite heavy with game master directions.

Computer roleplaying is as heavy as postal roleplaying, but it's not as visible.

Tabletop roleplaying has these techniques to a varying degree, depending on the game and the style of the game master. It tends to be used less than in computer and postal games though.

Live action roleplaying make little to no use of such techniques. The larps using them are the ones very close to tabletop games in the way they are played out (not common in Scandinavia).

I tend to be conceived as a game master using these techniques very much, by those who have not played with me. This is due to my advocacy of these techniques, not my actual use of them. I've called them railroading techniques, but due to recent discussions I will not use this term any more. I've also called them "feeding techniques", as pertaining to the techniques used by the game master to feed conflicts and to feed (or starve) the complexity of character choices.

I've used these techniques a lot, but not in all games I have GMed. I have led a lot of different roleplaying games, and designed almost all of them myself (a fair share of games). I've made use of a lot of different techniques, and a variety of techniques in combination. I'm all for using the most effective and creative technique in any given instance, in a quest for the ultimate goal of the game.

OK. That's my background.

To start the discourse on this issue, I will try to describe a experiment made by me and my helpers, at a games convention two years ago, in Oslo, Norway. In my fantasy roleplaying game Fabula, I made three linked scenarios for the convention, to be played by the same players, with the same characters in various stages of their education. The scenarios placed the players as students at a magic university. Each game master made himself a main NPC-character, being the mentor of the students.

The scenarios was delivered to the game masters in the weeks before the convention, in the form of a voluminous scenario book for them to read, including the new setting and the special method, and a full day meeting where one scenario was played through, the mentors were made, and the method was discussed. The reason for this discussion was of course the special method invented for the scenarios.

I called the method impressionistic roleplaying. It takes place within the framework of my FRPG Fabula, which is quite traditional in method (using a die, stats and skills, etc.). However; in this instance the method had some special features added on.

It is meant to be directed by the game master with as much in-character talk as possible, with heavy use of gesticulation and mimicry, with no table between players (they sat on the floor or on chairs, in a ring). The game master was meant to stand up every time he talked in character (and expecting that of players too). The GMs were instructed to close in on the players, touching them, "threathening" them with gesticulation, confronting them with his physical presence in various ways. They were instructed to do this from the very start, starting before the players had seated themselves, before the characters were distributed.

The idea was to make the players realize that this is something quite different, forcing them to reinvent their way of playing, as play continued (you may call it "shocking players into acceptance"). The desired effect was accomplished in five of six groups (none of them led by me), and made for some great gaming sessions (many players contacted me later on, being very enthusiastic about the experience). The last group failed due to the game master not being equal to the task (he admitted this himself).

The reason I named this impressionstic roleplaying was that as the game progressed, the game master would routinely cut scenes of conflict in the initial stages, transporting the characters to a scene some time later (the immediate conflict aftermath, or one hour later, perhaps the next day, or a whole week later...). This new scene was always introduced as the first oportunity the characters had to talk about what happened in the conflict in the disrupted scene. Then the game master let the players talk, in character, about what happened. They were instructed (if need arose) to take their cue from the intial stages of the conflict, but to invent the rest of the conflict themselves, with an outcome as they saw fit. The game master would rectify details pertaining to the NPCs, feed some details of the conflict (giving them new elements to pertain to, elements of surprise, or changing basics of the scene. In some of these scenes the game master chose to introduce the mentor, to participate in the discussion of the characters (if they let him). In some of these scenes the game master limited himself to the play of servants, unexpected visitors, short comments about the day growing darker, the characters becoming hungry, or other atmospheric dandruff (the game master feeding the underlying atmosphere, rather than conflict).

The action scenes was limited to function as a part of the scene framing for the dialectic scenes, and as such they functioned perfectly.
The introduction of an action scene introduced the main opponents, and perhaps some first crisis, and then play was transported to the dialectic scene, leaving it to the players to work out the further flow and/or ebb of conflict, and the details of the outcome, in character (characters in dialogue on the conflict and it's significance). The dialectic scenes were used to invent the conflicts in an atmosphere of creative playfulness, due to the evident survival of all the characters. Due to the survival of all characters, all players were free to inflict damage and grave consequences on eachothers characters, teasing and toying with eachother in an atmosphere of complete confidence. It made for some great invetiveness by the players, and great gameplay.

That's my experience with impressionistic roleplaying, described in a general manner (some of the detailed techniques omitted, or only hinted on). I've not used the complete method since then. I have used some of it's special features in singular game sessions, succeeding with some of them, and not quite pulling it off with others. Some of the techniques is dependent of the special impressionistic framework to function well.

Any comments? Similar experiences? I'd like to have a discourse on these techniques, and similar ones, so feel free to contribute...

[M. J. Young]

I've got a quick question about your terminology. You speak of "postal roleplaying". I'm assuming that you mean what is commonly called (in English) Play-by-Mail (PbM) or Play-by-E-Mail (PbEM) games. There are also what are called Play-by-Post (PbP) games which are sometimes called Forum Games, played on a bulletin board style format (like this one) which are similar but not the same.

I ask in part because I've not seen much referee force used in our forum games, although that might be because Multiverser play allows a great variation in the use of such techniques and tends to be rather responsive to player interests more so than to referee decisions (although referees do have a great deal of control if they choose to exercise it). My PbEM play is minimal (and again limited to Multiverser, and not high in referee force), and my PbM experience non-existent.

So I'm wondering what you meant by "postal".

I'll mention in passing that although I like the word "postal", due to events in recent U.S. history "going postal" has come to mean completely losing control and killing a bunch of people when you can't take it anymore (reference to a U.S. Postal Service worker who did this some years back), so a lot of people are going to find the correct usage odd.

--M. J. Young

[Walt Freitag]

Tomas, this is great stuff. But unless I'm misinterpreting what you're describing, I might have a surprise for you: this doesn't strike me as particularly high in Force.

GMs getting in the players' faces (as Americans would say), that is, getting physically close to the players, touching them, gesticulating: certainly an unusual way of interacting, but it doesn't appear to have any intent in it as regards the player-characters' choices or actions.

Player-characters unable to be killed, because the action (at least at the peak of the conflict) is told in a sort of flashback: this certainly is a limitation on the import of player-characters' decisions -- they cannot kill one another no matter what -- but if that constitutes Force it's of a very mild strain. Something that perhaps should be discussed is where the dividing line is between "GM Force" and (if there is such a thing) "system Force." In AD&D (any variety), for example, no one would say a GM was using Force by not permitting player-characters to start at tenth level or by limiting spell-casters to casting only spells they know. Those are limitations on players' and characters' choices, but they're not Force as far as I know. Similarly, not being able to kill PCs is not an unusual restriction in role playing games, variously encountered as a rule in the game text (e.g. InSpectres) or as a house rule (e.g. "no PvP").

The Scene Framing Technique of cutting away from the conflict and exploring its outcome from a future retrospective perspective: this doesn't seem like very much Force at all.

Then the game master let the players talk, in character, about what happened. They were instructed (if need arose) to take their cue from the intial stages of the conflict, but to invent the rest of the conflict themselves, with an outcome as they saw fit.

The GM could apply Force at these times, for instance by causing the NPCs to intervene to prevent an unexpected player-character decision from being put into effect, or making comments about the day growing darker that are actually to be taken as instructions for what the PCs should do (as in, "the day is getting darker" meaning "the characters had better stop and camp right here"). But the framework appears no more conducive to such Force than ordinary chronological tabletop play, and is perhaps less so. Nothing you've described here so far gives me the impression that the GM was using much (if any) Force there.

That leaves the advance preparation of the three scenarios (and their chronological and/or causal relationships to one another) as the most likely area involving Force. Here again, force might possibly be involved in what you're describing, but not necessarily. There would likely be Force involved, for instance, if the players' narration of the outcome of each scenario were expected to somehow end up at the (pre-planned) beginning of the next one, or if each scenario had to end with finding a clue leading to the next one. But there are many other ways the scenarios might be "linked" that don't imply Force. There's nothing terribly Forceful about the GM or the gamesmith saying something like, "Scenario 1 ends when the players have dealt with Count Glower to their satisfaction. Scenario 2 begins two months later, on the morning of Prince Trent's wedding..." Scene framing can be a way of applying Force, if it's used to forestall character actions that are important to a player. But it can also just be a good way to get quickly to the next interesting situation.

So, let me ask you, where do you see the Force coming down in these impressionistic role playing sessions? Is there something I've missed?

What do other people think?

Let me leave with a brief example from the LARP world, for comparison. There was a LARP called "Lifeboat," which I only know about second hand as I didn't play in it or GM it. The scenario was a group of characters trapped in a spaceship escape pod, with limited information and limited food. The game ran for about 48 hours, during which the players were put into an RV (recreational vehicle; think of it as a 3-by-5-meter room with bunk beds and a very small water closet) and not allowed to leave unless they quit the game or if there were an outside-the-game emergency. The Gamemasters remained outside and communicated only in character via an intercom representing the ship's emergency radio.

Besides spawning jokes in the LARP community of the time (a spoof flyer for a LARP called "Buried Alive in a Pinto!" circulated at cons afterward), this raised some questions about realism and fun in LARPs. But does the player-characters being trapped in a lifeboat represent Force? Again, I don't think so. I believe it's just Situation, plain and simple. Not everything that limits a player-character's choices is Force. Situation limits player-characters' choices too, as you (Tomas) yourself pointed out in the "Freedom" thread. Some situations more than others. The important thing is context and, as always, the Social Contract. Forcing the player-characters into the "lifeboat" by closing off all other possibilities would generally take quite a bit of Force, and possibly even represent Railroading. But if the promo for the game says "This game is about being trapped on a lifeboat..." then Force isn't really involved.

- Walt

[Tomas HVM]

I posted this late at night, after a prolonged birthday celebration. In hindsight I do see that force don't enter into it any more than in a normal game. The reason may be that I'm more into scene framing and feeding techniques myself, using force only when a scene or theme call for it specifically.

I do hold feeding techniques to be related to force though, as they are used to manipulate conflicts, serving complications to the premises by which the characters act. I do not state that a choice may not be made, but at best of times I've managed to get whole groups to go from one choice, to the opposite one, and back, alternating who is the spokesman of either choice, within the course of one scene. It's been done using feeding techniques, manipulating the premises by which each individual of the groups enters into the conflict.

One of my groups came up with this proverb; If the game master open his mouth, clasp your hands over your ears!

So, how do I do this?

Example of feeding techniques at play:
The characters need to decide what to do with their captives, one woman and her two children, captured in the woods. They don't want to kill them, and they can't set them free (them being witnesses and all, the characters being look-outs for the hidden march of an army). One of them propose that they should bind the prisoners to a tree. I let the woman wail, accusing them for feeding her and her children to the wolves. They gag her, and continue discussion (no binding to the tree, though). To kill them seems to be the easy way out, but I'm not one for serving it on a platter.

Serious feeding is initiated: A note to the witch-character states that killing the captives includes burying them, if they're not to turn into ghosts, hunting the souls of the characters (sic). Children ghosts are known to be the worst souleaters... It's winter, the ground is frozen, and stones to bury them by is far off (hauling them through the snow, on snowshoes, is near impossible). A note to another player, states that the two children is of the same age as the younger siblings of his character (one girl and one boy, he remember their faces last autumn, eagerly waiting for him to tell about his heroic deeds...). A third note, to the military leader of the character group, reminds him that not killing them will be a serious breach of orders, placing the whole idea of this wintermarch into jeopardy (his girlfriend marching with the bulk of the army).

I lean back, watchin the forces unfold. The players are free to handle the situation in any way they choose, to free their characters from any personal or situational premises given. There is no interruptions by outside personas. They are alone in the woods. However; as few players are enthusiastic about the killing of children (even though it is a game, I'm good at playing frightened or unsuspecting children), mostly this situation ends up being a hot character debate, with their emotions (and player emotions equally so) becoming raw as the inevitable solution draws nearer.

The solution is of course not "inevitable", but still; I have never seen the scene ending in anything but the killing of the prisoners, and the characters hauling the corpses along on their backs, in the snow, towards the central mountains of the forest (where they may be buried by stones). The reason for this "inevitability", is the careful use of authority, and build up of loyalties, from the start of the scenario, making their army-relationship paramount to them, something they crave to be good, as good soldiers do (the brotherhood of fighting men being quite strong, and conscientiously used by modern officers). The players get caught up in the internal logics of the characters and their surroundings. They experience a need to satisfy the superiors of their characters, to fulfill their orders, and to be successful in that respect (the power of players need for success, carefully applied to trap them in the inhuman logics of the scenario).
_____________________________

That's one example of how to use feeding techniques. The theme is not the most beautiful, I admit, but it certainly goes to show how effective these techniques may be. In this instance it has given the predicted outcome every time I have led the scenario. It has given the same outcome when led by other game masters, each and every time.

"Feeding" is not used to reach a preplanned conclusion every time it is in play. It may as well be used, and more frequently so, to feed conflicts of the group in manners neutral to any outcome.

However; it may still be claimed to be an indirect way of using force, perhaps? How say you?

[Eero Tuovinen]

"Feeding" is not used to reach a preplanned conclusion every time it is in play. It may as well be used, and more frequently so, to feed conflicts of the group in manners neutral to any outcome.

However; it may still be claimed to be an indirect way of using force, perhaps? How say you?

IMO this depends on how you view particular players as the GM or an outside observer. If you consider the actions you took in the example as simple participation in the discussion of premise, then it's hardly any force. On the other hand, if it's seen as pointing the players to a direction, then it's definitely Force.

I tend to credit my players with autonomous will about decisions important to their characters, and therefore I do join actively in conversations about possible outcomes. I trust in my players to make the choice that's correct for them. If I didn't do this, I'd feel like keeping pets instead of playing with equals.

This is a considered choice of perspective for me, though. At times I have players that follow any hint the GM cares to place in their way, even to complete humiliation and failure. That's the breaks, the other option is taking some kind of a god role and ensuring that I only ever hint at "good" decisions.

My point is that what is considered Force is entirely dependent on complex social particulars. If you have players that are used to taking direction, then your example is definitely Force. By telling one player that his character should oppose something and another that his should accept it, you are in fact telling them to play in a certain way. It's Force, despite being disguised as world information or a simple suggestion. On the other hand, if the players take your suggestions as simply some factors to consider, it's not Force, it's just playing.

I think the whole concept of Force is a little problematic at the fringes because so much depends on the social context. A GM might even be using Force without realizing it if the players interpret his good natured suggestions as degrees.

[Tomas HVM]

As for the term "postal", I did not intend to "go postal" on you. It was only a convenient term for play-by-post, play-by-email, and play-by-forum games. Games with writings as the basic mode of communication. I place them all in the same bucket, even though they differs to some degree.

My standardization is not good in this instance, either. Most of my early play-by-post games was heavy on the use of GM-force, but more recent games (play by email and forum) have been very light on it. The most recent (play by forum) got no GM at all.

[Walt Freitag]

I agree that "Feeding" as you've described it is a Force technique. What makes it Force, though, in my opinion is not the imagined existence of a "narrow" situation (a situation with few or only one plausible reaction(s) by player-characters), but the GM's willingness to adaptively "block" alternative approaches -- especially if that willingess is conveyed to the players by other cues besides the blocking decisions themselves, and especially if those cues prevent the players from even trying alternative approaches, so that the blocking never actually happens overtly.

When the Force is the implied "threat" of using Force if necessary, rather than any actual vetoing or nullifying of player decisions, judging the degree of Force becomes a game of "what if" hypotheticals. Consider two examples:

1. Player-characters are ambushed by a pack of goblins. Just about all players in such a situation, in the particular game being played, would choose to fight the goblins (rather than, say, surrender or immediately flee). Does this make the goblin attack itself an exercise of Force? We have to ask, what would happen if the players did react differently? Or even more important, what do the players believe would happen if they reacted differently? Do they have reason to believe, based perhaps on the GM's past behavior or based on hints fed to the players in the present encounter, that they'd end up having to fight the goblins anyway? (The goblins will refuse to honor a surrender; escape routes will all be blocked; and so forth.) If so, that's Force.

2. The player-characters, all of them heroic types, discover an ancient prophecy stating that they are the chosen ones destined to be the only hope for saving the world against the looming threat of the Dark Lord, and that to prepare they must seek the Onyx Blade in the Mountains of Sorrow. What heroic character would refuse to go off the Mountains like a hound after a rabbit? In this case, it's hardly even necessary to ask what would happen if they chose otherwise. There would be no game. (Unless, just maybe, the GM were willing to retCon that the prophecy turns out to be false.) This is Force even if the "what if" is never tested. It's Force operating in the context of Participationism.

What makes your example appear to me to be Force is not that some number of groups of players all made the same decision (that could be coincidence, or it could be just a narrow situation like the goblin attack). It's the GMs' apparent willingness to block unanticipated alternative player-character choices on the fly. Whether they would really do this or not is less important than whether the players think they would. After a few rounds of "no, you can't do that because..." (or equivalently, "if you do that it would have these really bad consequences..."), the players are likely to say, "Okay, we see how the wind is blowing here, I guess we'll do what's expected."

The only reservation I have applying that to your example of the captured spies is that the solution the players arrived at, killing the spies and carrying the bodies, doesn't seem terribly obvious. (And you've said as much). Is it possible that the first time this was run, the players came up with that as an unexpected solution, and subsequently GMs applied additional Force to make it come out that way again?

The other equally likely possibility is that even though it's not obvious, the situation makes killing the spies and carrying the bodies the only workable solution. When a situation represents a problem with only one workable solution, and that solution is difficult to figure out, I call it a puzzle. Are puzzles Force? Usually but not necessarily. Puzzles require constraints in order to exist, but those constraints can come from immediate use of Force or from pre-existing facts about the characters and situation (which in turn might or might not come about due to Force). This is where your "inevitability" factors need to be examined. Who decided that the military leader of the group is someone who believes fully in the cause? (What if the player of the military leader character attempted, earlier in the game, to establish his character as a rogue who's in it for his own survival and who sometimes questions orders? Who decided that the characters believe in, and fear, ghosts?

I have a theory (it could be bunnies...) -- or perhaps I should call it a Principle -- that what matters most in the Social Contract governing player-character autonomy is how the participants (including the GM) react to unanticipated player-character decisions. Anticipated decisions are, for the most part, not an issue; they're the baseline beat of play, marking time. What makes participants worth having, the reason for playing with other live human beings, is their ability to make unanticipated decisions. Those decisions, and how the GM and other players react to them, stand out in importance. If they're not being made or permitted to be put into effect, it's Force. To the extent that they're being purposely withheld by the players, you've got Participationism.

- Walt

[Bankuei]

Hi Walt,

I think your principle holds a lot of weight to it.  The normal expected actions fall within the boundaries of the CA, the unexpected ones test where the boundaries lay.  At the point where the individual techniques fail to cover, the group has only the Social Contract to work with, and at that point, it becomes pretty clear how much input players are getting into the game.

Chris

[Tomas HVM]

If you consider the actions you took in the example as simple participation in the discussion of premise, then it's hardly any force. On the other hand, if it's seen as pointing the players to a direction, then it's definitely Force.

I consider it participation, but in no way "simple". It is in fact very complex interaction, partly due to the relationship between the game master and the players. And then; some of it is pointing the players to a direction. It always is. As a game master I should always try to open up for new deliberations, to deepen the conflict and to sharpen the dilemma.

If you want the players to walk in one particular direction, the trick is to point in several directions at once, but to make the players choose the one you want them to walk. This will only work if you establish some confidentiality with your players, and at the same time are completely willing to manipulate, maim or kill their characters.

As a game master I have discovered that your attitude is essential. GM-attitude is what my game Pervo is all about.
Free your  mind, and the players will follow!
:-)

On the other hand, if the players take your suggestions as simply some factors to consider, it's not Force, it's just playing.
...
A GM might even be using Force without realizing it if the players interpret his good natured suggestions as degrees.

Most game masters use some kind of "force" (by your definition) in their games, and quite a lot of them don't know it. Most players are subject to GM-force, and a lot of them know nothing of it. It may be force even though the game master and the players don't realize it.

I'm not particularly interested in it as a way of flatly saying to the players: "No, that you can not do". I'm more taken with the kind of subtle pressure you, as a game master or a gamesmith, may apply to the game, to make it grow in your players mind.

I agree that "Feeding" as you've described it is a Force technique. What makes it Force, though, in my opinion is not the imagined existence of a "narrow" situation (...), but the GM's willingness to adaptively "block" alternative approaches ...

I think this reveals a narrowness to your appliance of the term, and maybe this is due to the term itself: "force". Your description of it makes me think of game master techniques I find quite unsavoury and brutal in a normal roleplaying game. As a game master I prefer to be more subtle in my approach.

You are wrong to think that any "block" is considered in the example given. If the players were to choose an alternative to the "millitary discipline", as a game master I would have to follow their lead.

My invention of the term "feeding" is partly a reaction to the common appliance of "force"-techniques like the ones you describe. I wanted to make something more subtle, but at the same time I wanted to be able to give sound directions to my players, to create an interesting drama. It is indeed possible to direct a roleplaying game very rigidly by these techniques, as in the chosen military example.

However; as I explored the possibilities inherent in feeding the drama, rather than forcing it, I found that the conflicts of the drama deepened with the use of these techniques. As a result the drama took on an altogether new direction. The conflict becomes interesting in itself, and the interaction within the conflict becomes the real theme of the game. The conflict is central, not the conflict resolution! The conflict resolution is made into a pivot in the conflict, enveloped by a complex and emotionally though build up, and an aftermath filled with reactions and repercussions.

Build up ---> Pivot of conflict ---> Aftermath

While using the feeding techniques fully, any chosen action by the players is only a temporary release of conflict, aimed to bring the characters into new conflicts, often pending on the reactions and repercussions of the former. It has shifted the focus of my roleplaying entirely. And it has made it so much more fulfilling and easy to function as a game master.

The idea of any implied "threat" of Force, or the raw use of it, is something only contemplated in the rare occations that the playergroup is dysfunctional, and need a rather clear and brutal treatment to be set straight.

I have some other points to make too, on both feeding and scene framing, but this will do for now.

[Walt Freitag]

Sorry about the hiatus (other stuff going on, both on the Forge and in RL).

Tomas, you've convinced me that your technique is not based on "blocking" of player choices by the GM. (That was only one possibility, the most obvious one because as you say, it's the most common Force technique.)

But it sounds to me like the essence of "feeding" is not very different from that. It's telling players what not to do, just before they actually attempt to do it. The players talk (in or out of character, doesn't matter) about maybe letting the captives go free; you remind them that it would violate one of the player-characters' orders. Or you remind them even before they have a chance to talk about it, knowing that it's a possibility they're bound to consider, given the situation.

Now, you might object that (1) reminding a player of his character's orders, which were after all already well-established in the shared imagined space (you didn't just make them up out of the blue in order to "block" a choice, after all), is hardly "telling them what not to do;" and (2) your reminder is in no way forcing the player to have his character obey those orders; you're quite prepared to allow the captives to be set free and to play out the consequences.

But it IS telling them what not to do. No player I know would interpret "Don't forget that setting the captives free would be in direct violation of your orders," spoken or written in a note by a GM in a game with traditional authority structure to a player whose character is a loyal soldier, is going to be interpreted by the player as "Don't do that, or else Bad Things Will Happen" every single time. It's not subtle, it's just politely stated, like the cop who politely requests that I please stay behind the yellow line at the parade. Just because he hasn't shoved me or bashed me with his baton doesn't mean I'm at all in doubt that force is in effect.

The player in question already knows very well what his character's orders are, right? It's not like he's really going to suddenly forget them in a situation like this. And then he gets your note. He knows that you know that he knows what his character's orders are. Obviously (to him), your only reason for reminding him of the orders (in writing for christssakes) is to "direct" the player -- that is, to lay the Force down.

Which brings us to #2: that this is not like regular Force because the player is actually free to have his character disobey the direction and the military orders. (You have no baton, there is no threat of Bad Things involved). The question, then, is: why doesn't he? After all, you're saying that the technique works, right? That is to say, that the players consistently do just what you expect them to. So, why does the technique work?

-- Because your suggestions weave a web of subtle psychological influence around the players that beguiles them into doing what you want without them ever realizing that they're being influenced?

-- Because your players know that you will punish them for disregarding your what-not-to-do suggestions, in ways possibly far more subtle than the suggestions themselves? (Such as, by being dejected afterward that the session didn't go well?)

-- Because your players know that you will reward them for adhering to your direction?

-- Because even though you don't reward or punish your players in this way, they've been conditioned, by rewards and punishments enacted by past GMs they've played with, to obey these sorts of GM directions?

Occam's Razor suggests that the first possibility is the least likely, though I cannot be certain.

None of this is to say that there's anything wrong with the technique. Not if it works with your group. I've done it myself. It works especially well if the reinforcement is mostly reward-based, and the reward is that you're really good at feeding them really cool stuff and the players are guaranteed to experience the cool stuff as long as they take your direction. There is a danger, though, that one or more players will call you on it, and resist your direction. If there really is no punishment for it, they will likely start doing so more and more. That will require you to either bring in more overt Force to keep the player-characters moving along your predicted lines, or adopt GMing techniques that are less dependent on player-characters moving along predicted lines.

By the way, on a previous thread I went to some length to show that not all Force is Illusionism. But, the kind of Force you're describing now is[/i] illusionism. The key ideas being "subtle direction."

- Walt

[hanschristianandersen]

Walt, Tomas, & company -

I just wanted to say that I'm really digging this thread.

In response to the following "Because":

-- Because your players know that you will reward them for adhering to your direction?
...
It works especially well if the reinforcement is mostly reward-based, and the reward is that you're really good at feeding them really cool stuff and the players are guaranteed to experience the cool stuff as long as they take your direction.

I think that most of the published scenarios that I've ever read, for any system, are responsible for teaching this sort of player reaction.  Most of them provide either very bounded environments (dungeon walls make it hard to leave the path), or they provide an A->B->C->D string of events, with little guidance for what to do if the players would rather go to Q or Z.  I've played with some GMs who can make up all kinds of wonderful things on the fly, such that going directly from B to Q still makes for satisfying play.  But for other GMs, improv is difficult past a certain point, and the quality of play notably suffers if it deviates from the script.

Here, the GM isn't actively trying to impose any sort of punishment; the resulting lower-quality-play is itself the punishment.  So, the better the pre-planned script is, the bigger the delta between "reward" and "punishment" seems.  In my experience, my players fell into two camps - the camp that would play along, and the camp that would cause that particular game to fall apart because they'd refuse to play along and thus doom the game to mediocrity.

So, if pre-published scenarios represent your idea of "what game sessions are supposed to play like", then they're likely the model that you follow in creating your own scenarios, which doesn't promote spending much time developing skills at making things up on the fly, which keeps the delta between "reward" and "punishment" high.

[Tomas HVM]

... "feeding" ... It's telling players what not to do, just before they actually attempt to do it. The players talk (in or out of character, doesn't matter) about maybe letting the captives go free; you remind them that it would violate one of the player-characters' orders. Or you remind them even before they have a chance to talk about it, knowing that it's a possibility they're bound to consider, given the situation.

It is not telling the players what to do, or not to do. Some players will understand it this way, as they are used to Force, but as they set out to do the "bidding" of their game master, the GM will give them some implication or possible consequence to consider, and they're still left in indecision. Treated like this the players very soon (within the range of one discussion, usually) realise that the game master is feeding them moral implications linked to their culture and situation, elements that their characters are bound to consider in the present conflict. As the game master is feeding the conflict with elements pointing in any and all directions, the players are free to work with these elements.

But of course; to remind an officer of his orders, is to tell him what the higher officers will expect him to do. However; that is part of the fiction, and it is helping the player to take into consideration the loyalties by which the character are bound. To break such loyalties is part of the conflict, and should be considered. Players may choose to have their character break the loyalty, but it should be voiced in the game, either as a discussion between the characters, or as some inner conflict of the character.

If the scenario don't demand some preplanned conclusion, this process is usually left to be resolved by the players in any way they like. That is indeed the normal appliance of it. If the scenario demand a preplanned conclusion, the game master will usually not behave significantly different in the scene with the captives. The ideal way of making the players choose the preplanned decision, is to let the early parts of the scenario give an atmosphere and some significant events to imbue the arguments pointing in this direction with special power. In the case of the example the characters have most of their social relations in the barony, they have been imbued with a strong urge to satisfy their commander (although she is a cynic brute) through scenes where they have been admonished for not doing their duties, or through scenes where they have been praised for acting sharp. Through military and social-relations the characters have been preplanned to make the "right" decision in the particular scene.

How is this possible? It is possible if you consider that newly created characters are "youths". In the first game sessions these "juvenile" characters are in their formative stages, the players trying to create some moral framework for them to function within. The use of social scenes, family and friend-relations and professional relations, done by the game master, is essential to this framework (a "moral framework" always rooted in the social framework). The players are very open in this stages of the game; to what their characters may be, how they will react, and what they will do. It is possible to take advantage of this, both as a gamesmith and as a gamemaster.

This brings me to one of your speculations of why it works:

-- Because your suggestions weave a web of subtle psychological influence around the players that beguiles them into doing what you want without them ever realizing that they're being influenced?

They do realize that they are being influenced. Even nine year old kids realize that the game master is influencing them with his feeding techniques. However: as the feeding takes place within a framework of social bindings placing additional pressure on them, and by means not open to all of them (notes to single players, whispering, single interviews, etc.), they do not have a clear view of what (if any) direction this influence is pushing them in. To make a weave of influences; both negative and positive, hidden and open, contradictory, varying in strenght, premeditated, and sometimes quite accidental, is a way of making the game world into a complex and "realistic" world.

In the example with the captives, the killing of them offers no exitement in itself, being a summary execution, so the real conflict (and excitement) is in what motions the characters go through (the build up) to reach this tragic decision (the pivot), and how it will hunt them with it's consequences (the aftermath).

The build up of the conflict is taking most of the conflict-time, and the players are in command of that part (being fed by the game master, but making the movements themselves).

The pivot of the conflict has it's premiss from the players decision, but it's movements is mostly carried out by the game master (verbally indulging in the fright in the childrens eyes, castives hopelessly struggling to avoid the knife, the blood sprouting, the limp bodies, and the red, red snow...).

The aftermath is partly something dealt with at once, focusing on the characters revulsion towards their own actions, or their lack of obvious reactions to it (You sick bastard!). At the same time there is no end to the aftermath, as their decision may be dragged to the forefront of their mind at later stages (being punished for their actions, meeting the relatives of the captives, their younger brothers begging them to tell of their heroic deeds, their girlfriends or mothers asking why they awaken in the middle of night, screaming, etc. The aftermath may be used by the game master to force characters into reactions; if the character don't work on his shocking experiences, it is a fine time for use of Force; giving the character post-traumatic stress syndromes (bad sleep and screaming at night, nervousness and dejection in the daytime, problems with family, friends and lovers). These traumas may come at inconvenient times, when the character is involved in other conflicts, making life hard for them (oh, yes, life can be hard sometimes, and so can "the great adventure" be). Aftermath is great fun for the creative game master!

There is a danger, though, that one or more players will call you on it, and resist your direction.

When holding my courses on game mastering, I always make it a point to talk about chaos and fear. We all have it in us to fear the unpredictable, to fear any chain of events that we can't cope with. This is part of our nature.

As a game master in a roleplaying game it is essential to conquer your fear, and to let chaos loose upon your premonitions. There is only one way to deal with chaos; it is to let it flow around you, and to be calm in yourself. I tell my students to be confident! Becalm yourself! You know all there is on how to deal with chaos, and how to improvise.

Consider that your life is a total and unpredictable mess at times, I tell them, and that each and every conversation you participate in, is improvised from beginning to end.

And I tell them to stop worrying about entertaining their players. You are meant to enjoy your players, I tell them, and as you have agreed upon playing a game, all of you will in fact enjoy eachother. That's the great power of the game. Your singular responcibility in this context, as a game master, is to make the players realize that they have the power to enjoy themselves.

[Tomas HVM]

Hans Christian,

on the issue of scenarios, and scenario writing, I'm advocating the use of "elements". That is; singular parts of the game written in simple words, easy to use, and easy to shift about as the game flow in different directions. You make several geographical locations, several NPCs, scenes to be played out, and conflicts that may be introduced, but you don't necessarily link them together in any preplanned way. As play commences you play with your elements, introducing them in play as you see fit, and thus making the game flow while you get to play out the conflicts and NPCs of your choice.

You may choose to link your elements in some way, or to combine such elements with a preset goal for the scenario, and you may even choose to combine them with some rough use of Force. It all depends on the characters (who are they, what will make them act), and the scenario (it's theme, the conflicts at hand, and maybe the trappings of the genre).

It is possible to make scenarios going from A to B to C and finally to the great D(readed encounter), and making it a great scenario. But I don't recommend it as a general method of writing scenarios.

[Walt Freitag]

Hi Tomas,

You seem to be describing two different purposes for your Feeding technique. One is to create (hopefully temporary) indecision, doubt, and possibly intra-party conflict over decisions. This is designed to have a liberating effect:

As the game master is feeding the conflict with elements pointing in any and all directions, the players are free to work with these elements.

I completely agree that this is an effective and useful technique. The idea is to enhance the drama of decisions by making sure the players consider a wide range of implications, avoiding automatic decision making based on habit or "tunnel vision" immediate expediency, which can tend to set in in traditionally structured GM-authored play. This is not Force at all; in fact, using the technique can reduce Force in some cases, by making what might otherwise be a completely predictable player choice into a more interesting decision where the players entertain many equally valid (or equally unpleasant) possibilities.

There is a crude (and far less effective) version of this technique that's often seen: the GM who asks "Are you sure that's what you want to do?" for every proposed player-character action. Unlike your Feeding technique, such questioning is devoid of meaningful content, so it's tedious and ultimately ineffective, but in my experience the intent is the same: to get players to think more about their decisions.

Another related technique is one of my own old-school favorites, the simple dilemma, or "puzzle with no solution." From designing traditional puzzles around the traditional puzzle situations (captivity or imprisonment, stealing a guarded object, persuading aid from an enemy, etc.), I learned two things: players rarely figured out my planned clever solution (and rarely thought it was all that clever anyhow), and players often figured out a better (or at least equally good) solution than my planned one. So, I kept designing puzzle situations, but now I skip the part about the clever solution. In other words, I prefer to confront player-characters with problems that I myself don't see any "good" solution for. With their several brains to my one, I count on my players to figure something out. They may figure out a painless "clever" solution (the kind that looks like a pre-planned puzzle solution) that hadn't occurred to me, or they may end up having to make tough sacrifices or expend a lot of resources with a messy or dirty compromise solution. Either way, it's good. I'm not Forcing a solution on them, and because I'm not invested in my clever solution, I'm less inclined to Force the player-characters into the problem in the first place.

(I really wish I could use this technique in computer games, but it only works in a medium that allows open-ended player options.)

Going back to your many-directions Feeding technique, there are risks to it, as I'm sure you know (but other readers may not, and should be warned). With some players, the pushes in many simultaneous directions can result in paralysis instead of drama, or a "screw the mission, let's just kill things" reaction that amounts to angry rejection of the character behavior constraints (loyalties, alignments, causes, moral codes) that are seen as causing the bind (especially if those constraints are seen as externally imposed in the first place). There's also the issue of party unity to consider, if your "pushing in all directions" works too well. Suppose the player you "feed" with remniscences of his own beloved children refuses to have any part of killing the captives, but the military player you "feed" with reminders of his orders kills them anyway? The most plausible and most dramatically appropriate course of events would be for the first player's character to leave the party as a result. Are you prepared, and do your players know you're prepared, to continue play with a divided group? Or would the disgruntled player believe that staying in the party is necessary for his continued participation in play, and therefore be forced to come up with some excuse why his player-character does not decide to leave? If it's the latter, then at that point that player would be being railroaded, pure and simple.

The second use of Feeding you're talking about is to push player-characters in a particular pre-planned direction. That's a whole different issue:

If the scenario don't demand some preplanned conclusion, this process is usually left to be resolved by the players in any way they like. That is indeed the normal appliance of it. If the scenario demand a preplanned conclusion, the game master will usually not behave significantly different in the scene with the captives. The ideal way of making the players choose the preplanned decision, is to let the early parts of the scenario give an atmosphere and some significant events to imbue the arguments pointing in this direction with special power. In the case of the example the characters have most of their social relations in the barony, they have been imbued with a strong urge to satisfy their commander (although she is a cynic brute) through scenes where they have been admonished for not doing their duties, or through scenes where they have been praised for acting sharp. Through military and social-relations the characters have been preplanned to make the "right" decision in the particular scene.

The only difference between your description of this technique and mine in previous posts is quibbles over descriptive wording. You say that you're not telling the players what to do or what not to do (in a direct way), I say that you are (in an indirect way). In any case, we both agree it's Force. (For any third parties who may be in doubt of this, the proof that it's force is that it works. If players consistently decide the way the GM expects them to, there's Force in effect, however hidden its application).

You say it's the characters who have been pre-planned to make the "right" decision. But as I'm sure you've heard at the Forge before, the characters don't exist. They cannot decide anything. In the absence of Force, the characters should express the players' notions of how the characters would react to situations, just as the commander expresses yours. But the power relationship is skewed in your favor. What you've done that's clever and effective (though not unusual) is to replicate the out-of-game power relationship in the inside-the-game situation. Satisfy their commander, indeed.

Putting this use of Force into the context of the overall mix of techniques you've described, it appears to me that you're running an elegant and well-nuanced game overall. A little pre-planning, but not too much. A little improvisation on the fly, but not too much. A little scene framing and nonlinear chronology (with the attendant opportunities for retroatctive plotting), but not too much. And yes, a little bossing the players around with an NPC, but hopefully not too much. If you have the authorial vision needed to power all these techniques and keep the situation interesting, and I imagine you do, then I think I'd find playing in your game quite enjoyable.

I'm particuarly interested in your use of "elements" in play. It sounds somewhat like (and somewhat unlike) want I called "slices" in this post. (Actually, the whole thread is recommended reading, its length notwithstanding, as it's a thorough overview of no-myth play). Take a look and see if you perceive any connection there. The Conflict Cards in my Iron Chef Fantasy entry Arabian Nights ON ICE FAMILY SPECTACULAR are an extremely crude and so far incomplete attempt to replicate in game mechanics the process of how I formulate and use "slices" in no-myth play.

My own preferred uses of Force revolve around no-myth technique and authoring the plot on the fly by moving things around behind the scenes as necessary. The most basic version of this technique is the classic example of the party reaching a juncture, choosing to go one of two ways, and ending up at the same place either way because the GM has "moved" the destination. (I put "moved" in quotes because if the destination were not already in the shared imagined space, then it cannot really have said to be moved when the GM establishes it there. And if it were already in the shared imagined space, moving it becomes impossible without a major compromise to consistency. So the destination isn't really "moving" in any way. Nonetheless, everyone knows what I mean when I speak of the GM "moving" the destination.)

That particular example sucks anyway. It sucks both as a hypothetical event in play and as a representative example of the technique. What I prefer to do is this: the party makes a choice of two (usually far more, but let's say two for example purposes) different ways to proceed. This choice leads to two entirely different situations. However, the stuff that the choice not taken would have led to gets "moved," modified as needed, and used (that is to say, set up as an imminent possibility) again later. I'm not forcing the player-characters to go one particular way now, but I'm forcing them to go that way eventually. Even though every choice individually is meaningful and unforced, the pure weight of cumulative probability makes it all but inevitable that they will eventually take that option, if I want to be that forceful. (If I don't, I can simply let choices not taken fade away as the evolving situation makes them obsolete.)

Because the choice does in fact lead to two entirely different proceedings, it can be an informed choice, for which the players having considerable information about what each option will lead to. (The non-Force version of Feeding is one of many ways of conveying that information.) However, the information can't be too exact, or it would make reusing and relocating the unchosen option obvious, breaking the illusion of an objectively conceived world.

Why do this? For the same reason one would use any other type of Force: because it focuses the players to focus on a finite number of relevant conflicts. At any given time, there are conflicts that are "on the table" (literally, in the Arabian Nights game; figuratively, in my conventional GMing). These conflicts can arise by player choice in character design ("my character has a brother who was captured by pirates five years ago"), by player choice during play ("now that I have proof that Atlantis exists, I won't rest until I find it"), by pure happenstance ("it's not that I care about the five gold pieces, it's the principle of the thing, so let's track down that thief!"), or by my fiat ("the letter reveals that you have a brother you never knew about, who's been captured by pirates!"). Often, conflicts will arise in different ways for players with different playing styles. In any event, oonce a conflict is invested (the players are aware of it and have shown interest in it), the rule is that no matter what else happens, choices must be available that build toward resolving it. This is the principle of "the gun that's shown in Act I must be fired in Act III," in a dynamic and ongoing form. The long-lost brother might be on the back burner for long periods of time, if the players want to pursue other interests first, but he cannot be totally out of the picture, even if it means relocating the pirates to a different ocean or turning them into desert marauders to keep up with the players' choices.

Unlike the puzzle-with-no-solution, this technique can be used in computer games (though only for conflicts that are imposed on the player from outside). It turns into convetional computer-game railroading if the right-now choices ever dwindle down to one, which is fairly common even though it's easy to avoid. (The bottlenecks don't arise by themselves and can easily be prevented in the game design. But computer game designers hate the thought that a player might be able to play through a game without finding everything that the game contains, so they go to a lot of trouble to put those bottlenecks in.)

Is this really Force? I think it is, for several reasons. The acid test is, does it make my predictions about a player-characters' future actions come true? – and the answer is yes, it just doesn't predict when. And the fact that it can be implemented and used in a computer game is a strong indication too. At the same time, I believe it's about as benign type of Force one can have and still have the GM as author. It's been, in my experience, consistent with the expectations of experienced and inexperienced role players alike. That every conflict has a climax and a denoument comes across as natural and appropriate.

- Walt

[Tomas HVM]

You seem to be describing two different purposes for your Feeding technique.

Several purposes!

Feeding is one of the techniques I make most use of in my work as a gamemaster. The reason is that it enrich the game, of course, and that it may be used to meet different demands of the game:

- to make the players doubt what is the right action to take

- to make the players engage more deeply in their characters, seeing these as members of a society with laws and/or ethics

- to substanciate the mentalities of the society, creating a fictional world both physical and social ("social" in a very rich sense of the word)

- to make the players follow some lead (more or less hidden, depending on the combination of this technique with other elements of play)

I completely agree that this is an effective and useful technique. The idea is to enhance the drama of decisions by making sure the players consider a wide range of implications, avoiding automatic decision making based on habit or "tunnel vision" immediate expediency, which can tend to set in in traditionally structured GM-authored play.

Indeed it is! Your description of it is good, and if you say that this is not Force, then I'll have to agree with you.

There is a crude (and far less effective) version of this technique that's often seen: the GM who asks "Are you sure that's what you want to do?" for every proposed player-character action.

I agree that this is a crude way of doing it, and that the intent seems to be the same. In my experience there is good and bad ways to any and all techniques you may use in a roleplaying game.

Another related technique is one of my own old-school favorites, the simple dilemma, or "puzzle with no solution."

Yes, I know this way of doing it, and I know of a related dilemma; "a puzzle with competing solutions". In a drama where ethics depends on your point of view, on your loyalty, and where conflicting ethics may crash, there are multitudes of choices to be made. Any choice will make "one right, and two wrongs", and if no choice is preferred it will drag the conflict on, and make it worse even. This kind of dilemma would certainly fit into computer games, I believe. Linking the moral of a players troops, the efectivity of his command, or the ability to improve his character, to particular loyalties may facilitate the use of these loyalties to create conflicts between players. By such means you may create a computer roleplaying game where conflicts sprout from actions which are perceived to be effective for one party, are perceived to be hideous by another one.

Example: a baron clamps down on a group of religious fanatics spreading religious dissent among the populace of his barony. The neighbouring baron find his soldiers getting angry, as they identify with these beliefs. He may be a proselyte of this belief himself, and are informed that the hateful treatment of his bretheren in the other barony makes it hard for him to concentrate on other tasks (a reduction in command-points and XP is given). Wether he solves the problem by diplomacy, assassination or war, is his choice. Each solution bring its own troubles, of course. Am I right to believe that weaving conflicting interests and loyalties in this way, would be feasible in a modern computer game, and indeed in a massive multiplayer web-game?

That was a quick sidestep. We'll jump back on track:

... Feeding technique, there are risks to it, as I'm sure you know (but other readers may not, and should be warned). With some players, the pushes in many simultaneous directions can result in paralysis instead of drama, or a "screw the mission, let's just kill things" reaction ...
There's also the issue of party unity to consider, if your "pushing in all directions" works too well. ...

Surely there are dangers to the appliance of this technique, as there are to all kinds of techniques.

The technique can result in paralysis, yes. Such paralysis tends to be a passing problem, and one most experienced by experienced players caught up in traditional thinking. It's usually solved by explaining it to the player.

It may result in a "screw it"-reaction, having the player(s) skipping any dilemmas altogether, firing their crossbows at first oportunity. This is a more grave failing. It may be the result of a breakdown in communication between gamemaster and player(s), or it may stem from a real difference in attitude towards the game. The breach may be healed if it's a communication breakdown, by balancing the use of the technique to your players (not overdoing it), and by taking the actions of the characters into consideration. Let the game flow with their actions, and give them the inevitable consequences within the fictional framework thought to be there, in the social realm of the characters. If the reaction stems from a real difference in attitude, this solution will not work. It may be hard to see wether it is breakdown or attitude which cause the problem, and your game may be lost if you fail to recognize an attitude difference. If you spot it, and it pertains to the majority of your players, you may send your game in an altogether different direction. Take the cue from the players, and leave them to indulge in some uncomplicated questing and heroism, or whatever they would like to do. There's no need to make it an issue with your players, if you are ready to leave your preplanned sphere of play, and are able to go forth with as great a fortitude in a new (or old) direction!

And there is the problem with split-party. The unity of the party may be threatened by any technique or chain of actions pushing the characters in different directions. The typical traditional roleplaying game is an ensemble-drama. It will easily loose both pace and potential with a group divided. There is bound to be some discussion in a group where such a technique is applied, and the disagreements may be deeply routed, depending on how the characters are handled. One way to help the group come out on the other side of conflict, is to make the realtionship between the characters a part of your feeding. They may be friends, or brethren, or bound by oaths, or simply the only ones they may lean on in a world of foes. Such relationships can not be cast away easily. The feeding (focusing/strenghtening/threathening) of internal relationships, as a valid part of the dilemma, may make the players rethink what else would have been said and acted upon.

Example: The player is convinced that the most plausible and dramatically appropriate choice of his character, would be to leave the group he is marching with. His inner voice speak strongly to him, reminding him of the children back home, leaving him "no option" but this. And so he relates it to the other characters/players; if they really go through with the killing of these underage captives, he will leave them!

The player is quite willing to make a new character, as he perceives his character to be unplayable with such a murder on his conscience. However; the usual procedure is for such statements to be "negotiated" into the drama, and the gamemaster is of another opinion. He gives the player a note, stating that his father would be ashamed of his son leaving his friends to do the dirty work of the war. He gives another note to the leader of the group, stating that if the other character march out, he will be a deserter, and should be killed at the spot, and that this would mean that the leader would have to kill his friend, as well as the captive children!!! The gamemaster may continue to feed the player in question, by giving him a note stating that he (by some irrational reason) suddenly remembers his little brother killing a kitten, by strangling it slowly, not considering the agony of the animal at all, being just a little boy with no understanding of the agonies of the world...

Thus the conflict may continue, turning into a morbid test of their friendship...

The point of this example is that you have to be clever in appliance of the feeding technique, and you'll have to be ready to kick in with really big guns. In an intense conflict, with players getting engaged as well as their characters, it may happen that the players loose sight of the premise that a tabletop roleplaying game is best played with a closely knit group of characters. The ideal is for all of them to survive, alive and marked, developing relationships and conflicts between them as the drama continues. If one or more players forget this, then you should give them the full broadside of friendships, families and social framework going to pieces, and watch the effect. If it's not working, you may have to let the character(s) in question go; maybe being killed by his comrades...

Players loosing sight of the benefits of keeping their character alive and pining, and loosing sight of the basics of an ensemble drama, is happening quite often. It is not limited to games where feeding techniques are consciously applied. If the technique of feeding is established as a well functioning part of gameplay within a group, and it is used efficiently, it is in fact a powerful tool to hinder the effects of such roleplaying dead-ends.

In my eyes it will not do to accept it as an established mode of play; setting up two independent groups within one game. So the conflict has to be resolved. If it is not resolved within the scene, it has to be postponed, or one of the groups has to go. It is a limitation to the game, but some limitations has to be acknowledged.

One important thing to remember when "resolving" such conflicts, is that any conflict may be reawakened at a later time, provoked by anything in the range from one badly spoken word, to the consequences coming back to haunt them.

You say it's the characters who have been pre-planned to make the "right" decision. But as I'm sure you've heard at the Forge before, the characters don't exist.

That the characters don't exist is a very dubious statement. I'm not sure I agree to it. However; I do not believe a discussion of the point is called for here, so I'll leave it be.

What you've done that's clever and effective (though not unusual) is to replicate the out-of-game power relationship in the inside-the-game situation.

Focussing as much as possible of my creative efforts on strenghtening the fiction, while securing conflict for the drama and pace to the game.

If you have the authorial vision needed to power all these techniques and keep the situation interesting, and I imagine you do, then I think I'd find playing in your game quite enjoyable.

Thank you!

My present challenge though, is to relate my techniques to other players, giving them the vision necessary and securing an activation of inherent abilities, to make such a game come to life in any player group bying my games. This discussion may be seen as part of my efforts in response to that great challenge.

As for my use of "elements", it is indeed in tune with the description of your "slices". However; it is closely linked with my philosophy as a designer, permeating it at every level, so I will not indulge in a discussion of it in this thread. Perhaps we could take it up in a couple of months?

I do understand your definition of Force more thoroughly now, and I am certainly one to use it. I have used it a lot more though, in my earlier days of gamemastering. Nowadays I am preplanning for my games by contemplating cultural contrast at hand (political entities, races, social levels and schools of thinking in the habitat of the characters), creating a frame of mind that communicate well with the setting before the game session. I make myself a memo, sometimes, but usually I'm extricating conflicts from the contrast of setting and characters as play commences. The necessary scenes and NPCs are created at the spur of the moment. A list of names consistent with the setting, a list of general skill-levels to be applied with NPCs, and my dear maps, are my general working tools in this process.

As for the effect upon play; when characters come to a juncture in the road, their choice will influence what conflict they stumble into, and how it is presented. If they go to the big city, they will meet men with no love for elves, and pitiful elves of a sleezy nature. If they go to the forest town, they will meet men and elves living together in an uneasy peace, and high elves looking down their nose at the characters. The conflict is the same; men VS elves, but their choice in the juncture may set the premise for the whole campaign.

Why do this? For the same reason one would use any other type of Force: because it focuses the players on a finite number of relevant conflicts ...
Often, conflicts will arise in different ways for players with different playing styles.

Yes! The gamemaster should always try to facilitate a gameplay reflecting the styles of all players present. If he is dissatisfied with their style of play, or perceive it to be in contradiction with the game at hand, he should strive to give them new options of play, to create a positive environment for them to reform their style of play in. Such efforts should always be kept within the reach of the attitudes and abilities of the players. "Positive reinforcement" is the key phrase in such an endeavour.

In any event, once a conflict is invested (the players are aware of it and have shown interest in it), the rule is that no matter what else happens, choices must be available that build toward resolving it.

I agree in this of all my heart! I do not read it as a statement of preferences, as each genre has it's own dramatic necessities, that must be adhered to if the game is to function well. I read it as a general principle, to be followed in all kind of roleplaying games.