What I’ve noticed through the ‘evolution’ of gaming into the indie systems we know and love is the development of safety tools that explicitly serve to mitigate the fallout from this coercive framework.

Now this a good thing – identifying that certain narrative elements that may be uncomfortable for some players, so here is an agreed table etiquette to avoid that ‘squicky’ feeling, or downright offense to some players.

What there seems to be a distinct lack of is the identification of mechanical elements that may cause the same reaction or uncomfortable squirminess. Whether that’s immersive ‘in character’ sub system elements or larger meta game elements that define conflict in broader strokes.

I guess it comes back to the given acceptance that when we sit down to play – we are going to explore what’s narratively interesting and dramatic to the players at the table. Perhaps the idea of being coercive and seeing it through via the fiction is somehow tempting and attractive?

I remember being blown away by your Posts Paul Beakley, back on the BW forums about the possibilities of BE for non-physical conflict (tightly constrained within the scene economy), and the ability to explore that sort of drama with an adversarial GM. Likewise, Vx’s commentary as he developed AW was similar in its reflection – how do we mechanitivise advocating for our characters yet still snowballing into untenable situations that engender coercive, squicky drama?

Maybe its an audience thing? Like watching a movie? The only only issue is that not only have you agreed to watch the game, you’ve tacitly agreed to use the mechanics that explicitly coerce the group to arrive at these dramatic junctures – for the pleasure of watching them play out?

Interesting discussion!

My gut says that despite Fiasco narratively being all about coercion, that the scene framing mechanics and voting system on positive / negative outcomes: is collaborative?