From over in the Forge Hubris/etc II thread:

Marco wrote: On 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.

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?

greyorm wrote: 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."

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.

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?

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.

greyorm wrote:
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.

Jaik wrote: Whenever Ron discusses scene framing, he mantions that he gets the players' approval of a scene change:

Jaik wrote: "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."

Marco wrote: 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?"

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

Marco wrote: 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.

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

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

greyorm wrote:
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 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.

Marco wrote: 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.

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).

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?

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?

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

greyorm wrote: 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.

greyorm wrote: he 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.

Marco wrote: 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

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).

greyorm wrote:
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?"

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.


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.


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

M. J. Young wrote:
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.

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.

contracycle wrote:

M. J. Young wrote:
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.

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

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

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.

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

Marco wrote: 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.

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.

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?

Maybe, just for me, Force = Railroading?

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

greyorm wrote: 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?

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

ErrathofKosh wrote: 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