Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Michael Pfaff, February 08, 2010, 09:44:10 AM
QuoteIf I say, as a player, "I want to avoid this encounter entirely and go do something else." And, the GM says, "No! You can't, this is the encounter where you find out about X clue! The bad guy's scuffle goes into the alley you took to avoid the encounter and suddenly, one of them attacks you!" I can, as a player, either A) accept this or B) deny this. If A happens, it's not railroading. If B happens, it is railroading.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on February 08, 2010, 12:32:48 PMI'm saying that for a specific group playing a specific game at a particular time, that is, a real-life play event, there will be an identifiable line between when Force is OK, and when Force is not OK, and about what.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on February 08, 2010, 12:32:48 PMThere's also the issue of what I called the Black Curtain, which is to say, the GM using Force but trying to keep it secret - Illusionist play. And that too is a matter of what people in the group genuinely want to do, and in terms of a real group in real action, isn't vague or relative at all.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on February 08, 2010, 12:32:48 PMP.S. One clarification: the bit about "thematic" in the definition of Force is an artifact; we'd been talking about the techniques specifically regarding Narrativist play. Substitute "strategic" for Gamist play, for example. Better, just say "important" and let that be a local Agenda thing for any group at any time, and then the Glossary definition will make the most sense.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on February 08, 2010, 12:42:13 PMDoes that make sense? In both my A and B, the player accepts the Force, but the issue is why they have to accept - something they were already buying into as "how we play," or something that they really don't want to play, but are socially blackmailed into doing.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on February 08, 2010, 03:30:22 PM1. The Lumpley Principle is a universal point, and yeah, what we're talking about is related - how we agree on what happens in the fiction may include Force for some groups, and the way that the Force is communicated and managed is definitely going to be a matter of raw-and-hard System for them. All those terms I threw around, like Participationism and Illusionism and the Black Curtain, and Force itself, are Techniqes in Big Model terms which relate to this issue.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on February 08, 2010, 03:30:22 PM2. I think I should specify, though, that Force is not itself a universal technique. I tried to show earlier that scene framing, for instance, doesn't even have to have any Force at all. If I say, "Later, when you're in the shower," and if we all know that this is a provisional statement open to discussion, then no Force is present there, even if you choose not to discuss it and go with it as stated. Force means the character is being appropriated, which is why your example was a good one - the GM saying "No!" (or meaning it, and knowing it's understood, even if unsaid) established that Force was involved.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on February 08, 2010, 03:30:22 PMA lot of my own game designs are deliberately anti-Force. I recently tried to explain this for Sorcerer, in [Sorcerer] How do you play it?, and Elfs, Trollbabe, It Was a Mutual Decision, and S/Lay w/Me all take it further by formalizing how and when different people can get their hands into the pot regarding a particular character. It's fair to say that a big priority for me, as a player who designs games, is to make the issue of Force a non-issue via rules that solve the problem before it arises.
QuoteSo, Force is simply when the GM is framing a scene and the other players resist (whether they agree to continue once said Force is applied and why they agree determines whether Force = Railroading). If the players don't resist, no Force. Makes sense.
QuoteHowever, the design can attempt to mitigate railroading through rules which specify when and how to use (or not use) Force (whether it's the GM or player using Force). Does this sound about right?
QuoteAs an aside, would you consider rules such as D&D's 'Rule 0' or 'it's ultimately the DM's call', and DitV's rule for GM's to 'push for smaller stakes' to be rules that encourage the use of Force (whether it results in railroading or it doesn't)?
Quote from: Ron Edwards on February 08, 2010, 05:11:04 PMP.S. - Hey, I'd like to get this focused a bit more on working on a game design. Let me know what you were tinkering with.