A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

Aldarc · Feb 26, 2019

Sadras said:
My primary purpose in this line of debate, is to reflect that Hard No's exist in the combat pillar, which is the most detailed part of many RPG's. So it is fair to say if Hard No's can exist in the Combat pillar, why is MMI only attributed towards Social and Exploration pillars by some posters?

With good faith and respect to "some posters," why do you think that may be the case? Do you think there may be differences between those pillars that contextualize those differences when it comes to MMI?

Ovinomancer · Feb 26, 2019

Aldarc said:
With good faith and respect to "some posters," why do you think that may be the case? Do you think there may be differences between those pillars that contextualize those differences when it comes to MMI?

To interpose, I think it's because D&D in general, and later editions specifically, have rules fir combat that empower players. D&D has soecific "moves" that are generally accepted to be not in question. However, this is an "as played" argument because as designed the DM still retains veto authority even over combat actions. This is, however, rarely used in actual play, instead defaulting to the combat mechanics which are accessible to both DM and player.

In a sense, while in combat, D&D is more neutrally centered.

Numidius · Feb 26, 2019

Bedrockgames said:
But there are some big differences here. One fire is something your character handles in the setting and tries to apply to the Death Knight. Like if you have a spell, that is an ability your character has that is defined in the setting. The sect being at the Tea House isn't something the character can control in that way. But the character can go to the tea house, the GM isn't going to stop them, unless something intercedes on the way (and I think if the GM is constantly blocking the party in that way, then something is up and the GM isn't doing a terribly good job of running the game).

It is true that combat and non-combat stuff tends to function differently in most games. You usually have clear rules for combat, whereas you can run an RP moment in game with no mechanics at all. I think you can do either, but I don't think it is mother may I to have fewer mechanics or procedures on the non-combat side of play. It is just the nature of the medium: you can run that stuff without mechanics and the GM serving as the engine of the setting is perfectly viable. Not the only way to do it. It is a valid way to run a game and it has its advantages. People who like those advantages will go for it. The issue people are having in this discussion is this preference is being discussed as if it is based in delusion, a lack of courage to question assumptions, or even as a lack of gaming enlightenment (and the snark around peoples' intellect is really palpable here). If you like running a game where there are mechanics and procedures for non-combat stuff, and you want to include some variation of "Say yes or..." that is totally cool. I just think the attitude being expressed by certain posters, the condescension, is just getting under peoples' skin.

The above is very reasonable and agreeable.
On the intellect part, actually my will to share the content introduction with the table, is because I'm not so smart and sparkling as I used to be, so letting others introduce new stuff is a relief, and also a welcomed surprise sometimes.

I see the advantages of one man leading the game, I practice it, but when I tried to be a player, I've never found a Gm half as reasonable as you, or peolpe here, are, ; were they more D&D gamey or CoC immersive or VtM abusive types. Things go smoothly and well until one agrees, when not, all is lost.

In conclusion I'd say, Full Gm driven games are fine, but with a caveat: to keep in mind it is always a teamwork game. IMO is important to prevent dispotic Gms as well as players becoming more and more lazy.

So, I'm looking at it from both sides of the barricade.

Sadras · Feb 26, 2019

Aldarc said:
With good faith and respect to "some posters," why do you think that may be the case? Do you think there may be differences between those pillars that contextualize those differences when it comes to MMI?

Yes (for obvious reasons) and No.
Somehow the combat pillar is exempt from MMI because of contextual differences.

So let us talk about Fudging.
In the broad sense of MMI, per the definition of some posters, I would consider Fudging to form part of MMI.
Surely any attempt to subvert Say Yes or RtD, which Fudging does, will result in an MMI situation.

Given that combat usually involves secret backstory (the details of the opponent/s), I'm under the belief that unless combat is COMPLETELY transparent the game should be classified as MMI since you will never know if Fudging occurs.

Is seems somewhat hypocritical to exempt the combat pillar from MMI, when so many DM's Fudge (as is evident from Enworld's recent Fudge thread).
Furthermore it is much harder to identify a Fudge as opposed to a Say No.
Most games therefore, under @chaochou's definition are indeed MMI given that not everything is transparent and therefore fudging is indeed a high possibility.
Ridiculous for sure, but that is the broad definition of MMI that some posters in this thread appear to be comfortable with.

Oh Fudge, what can of worms have I opened up now.

Aldarc · Feb 26, 2019

Sadras said:
So let us talk about Fudging.

Can we not?

Sadras said:
Is seems somewhat hypocritical to exempt the combat pillar from MMI, when so many DM's Fudge (as is evident from Enworld's recent Fudge thread).

That seems like too sandy of ground to build an argument on. Are the people who want "to exempt the combat pillar from MMI" the same people who advocated for fudging on that thread? (Or vice versa?) Because your moral accusation of hypocrisy seems to presuppose that those exempting the combat pillar from MMI are those who also fudge or advocate the use thereof.

Numidius · Feb 26, 2019

What Baker brilliantly solved with his player-facing-dice-rolling AW (and PbtA consequently) is the issue of fudging, while fostering a detailed action declaration by Pc and awareness of the fiction at the table in order to trigger those dice rolls.

Ovinomancer · Feb 26, 2019

Sadras said:
Yes (for obvious reasons) and No.
Somehow the combat pillar is exempt from MMI because of contextual differences.

So let us talk about Fudging.
In the broad sense of MMI, per the definition of some posters, I would consider Fudging to form part of MMI.
Surely any attempt to subvert Say Yes or RtD, which Fudging does, will result in an MMI situation.

Given that combat usually involves secret backstory (the details of the opponent/s), I'm under the belief that unless combat is COMPLETELY transparent the game should be classified as MMI since you will never know if Fudging occurs.

Is seems somewhat hypocritical to exempt the combat pillar from MMI, when so many DM's Fudge (as is evident from Enworld's recent Fudge thread).
Furthermore it is much harder to identify a Fudge as opposed to a Say No.
Most games therefore, under @chaochou's definition are indeed MMI given that not everything is transparent and therefore fudging is indeed a high possibility.
Ridiculous for sure, but that is the broad definition of MMI that some posters in this thread appear to be comfortable with.

Oh Fudge, what can of worms have I opened up now.

I disagree, here. Fudging dice rolls is essentially ignoring mechanics to supply your desired outcome, but this kind of bad play isn't limited to the GM. It's just that we tend to call fudging by players "cheating." I don't think conflating fudging die rolls with DM-centric adjudication of player actions is at all useful or illuminating -- you're just adding an additional facet, not clarifying.

Again, the "Rule 0" of D&D is that the DM is always right, and that extends over the combat pillar as well. It is within the rules for a DM to override a player combat action just as much as in the social pillar. Again, the as-played version affords much more latitude to players for action resolution in combat, so this kind of overruling is rare (probably due to D&D's wargaming roots). In fact, I'd say that it revolves mostly around the same issues as in the social and exploration pillars, in that the fiction prepped but not yet revealed to players is tge primary vector for overruling. Like using fire spells on a Death Knight, or falling victim to a trap not yet detected while in combat.

Appropo of nothing in particular, apologies for my atrocious spelling errors in recent posts. I'm on my phone and posting quickly.

chaochou · Feb 26, 2019

Sadras said:
In all those non D&D games are there monsters which are immune to certain effects or damage types?
For instance, in 5e, Death Knights are immune to exhaustion, being frightened and poison.

So name me the game that you're talking about which isn't D&D which features such things.

Sadras said:
Does the table decide if these monsters may be immune? Can bennies be spent to overcome the immunity?

Ah, well at least you're trying to ask a question that starts to address one of the issues at hand.

But your attempt to conflate them says that you suppose that the authority to author a monster and the authority to author world backstory and the authority to unilaterally decide the outcome of action declarations or the authority to unilaterally overide agreed resolution mechanics (or not) - are all the same.

Sadras said:
If not, I suggest those games be included under your MMI label because the players' mechanical resolution includes some hard No's if particular damage is deemed irrelevant. To argue otherwise is nonsense.

Firstly, you don't even know what games I might be talking about. You're stumbling around blind. But more pertinently - to argue as you have is to provide yet more evidence that you not only run MMI, but can't conceive of any other way to play. To lump together lots of types of authority and imagine they must all sit under the GM simply and clearly reiterates it.

pemerton · Feb 26, 2019

Bedrockgames said:
It is true that combat and non-combat stuff tends to function differently in most games. You usually have clear rules for combat, whereas you can run an RP moment in game with no mechanics at all.

What "most"? Fate, PbtA, MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic, Classic Traveller, Burning Wheel, 4e D&D - these are just some of the RPGs I know of which don't fit your description - they have resolution systems for non-combat action declarations which aren't exhausted by "The GM decides". Even AD&D gestured towards this with the NWPs in Oriental Adventures, although there are obvious weaknesses in the mechanical implementation.

Sadras said:
You're confusing the entire combat as the Action Declaration.

I'm not confusing. I'm observing.

If, in fact, player X is playing a PC whose wall raison d'etre is to drive a death knight away by causing fear, then your example would be analogous to the tea house example.

But in the typical D&D combat the goal of the player is to defeat the monster. The attempt to cause fear has defeating the death knight as it's goal, and the failure of that spell doesn't bring the situation to an end.

Sadras said:
The death knight has been narrated by the DM. Secret backstory the death knight is immune to x.
The tea house has been narrated by the DM. Secret backstory the sect are not at the tea house.

The death knight's immunity to fear doesn't dictate the resolution of the scene, subject to some of the very atypical examples I've already suggseted which - if they are in play - do give the death knight example the same character as [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] has referred to.

Sadras said:
So it is fair to say if Hard No's can exist in the Combat pillar, why is MMI only attributed towards Social and Exploration pillars by some posters?

It's not to do with the "pillar". It's to do with the structure of scene resolution. I don't think this is very obscure.

Bedrockgames said:
But there are some big differences here. One fire is something your character handles in the setting and tries to apply to the Death Knight. Like if you have a spell, that is an ability your character has that is defined in the setting. The sect being at the Tea House isn't something the character can control in that way.

"Mother may I" and similar labels aren't intended to be descriptions of the imagined causal power of imagined PCs. They're descriptions of the actual causal power of the players in respect of the shared fiction.

pemerton · Feb 26, 2019

Sadras said:
So let us talk about Fudging.

<snip>

Given that combat usually involves secret backstory (the details of the opponent/s), I'm under the belief that unless combat is COMPLETELY transparent the game should be classified as MMI since you will never know if Fudging occurs.

In DW, the GM never rolls any dice. So how would fudging occur?

In the games I GM, I roll my dice like everyone else, and read out the results - exalting in my natural 20s (when GMing 4e).

I think you are making assumptions about play practices which don't extend to many RPG tables.