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

[Ovinomancer]

I would instead argue that they perpetuate violence because they undermine the means and the habit of coming to mutually beneficial and acceptable arrangements. Arming oneself is fundamentally a statement "I will kill you rather than deal with the issues which create hostility." I argue this is a fundamental issue in contemporary society, though I think we should not pursue that discussion here, it would be best taken elsewhere.

History is replete with armed men of violence coming to mutually beneficial and acceptable arrangements, though. Feudal Japan is not remarkable in it's time for it's level of violence. Neither was the Wild West. Both were largely peaceful and most people got along just fine, including the armed ones. You seem to have a Hollywood version of history.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

I'm not sure I'd fully agree that 'most games' have a different mechanics for combat and non-combat. I mean, sure, there are generally certain procedures which exist in RPGs that are there to handle peculiarities of combat, but IME MOST RPGs base the two on an underlying basic resolution system (including D&D since 3e). MANY games don't distinguish at all and use the identical same mechanics in all situations, or only layer on a small amount of stuff. For example Traveler adds a 'range band' and rules for how to change bands onto its existing resolution system, and that's pretty much it (there are IIRC parry rules in old black book Traveler, but as melee combat is unusual in that game they are kinda irrelevant).

Obviously classic D&D is as you state, and some other (especially older) RPGs likewise. These are one case, where non-combat is entirely descriptive and mostly doesn't rely on dice. One of the reasons this has become uncommon as a design is effectively what you are describing. As games became less tests of player skill, and as it became expected for them to work in a wide variety of settings, people found it necessary to have conflict resolution of all types become subject to dice. This is largely a way of adding variety and insuring that players sometimes get what they want even if the referee might not be inclined to give it to them.

I think there is a lot less condescension than you are feeling which is intended, TBH. There are some very strong preferences at work though! So, for example, while there are DMs with whom I might play AD&D and have fun, they are very specific ones who's DMing style I know and can work with. We would probably also introduce some procedures into play to reduce the necessity of DMs simply hard adjudicating most everything outside combat and exploration. I'd note that this is something which 5e retains from 4e days, even its 'social pillar' has resolution mechanics in place, as well as Inspiration.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Right, I wouldn't find it productive or sensible to fudge dice. If I am 'playing to see what happens', then why would I force an outcome? If I'm playing as an advocate of the player's having fun and engaging their avowed interests, then there's no sense in which I am concerned if they fail or succeed, all outcomes will produce fun.

TBH, I personally feel that playing in a fairly 'story now' kind of way is actually most likely to result in a GM both framing scenes and resolving them in a logical, plausible and coherent way. My long experience indicates that in a more traditional classic D&D-esque structure it is quite likely the DM will go through all sorts of contortions at some point. Things like illusionism will arise (@Sadras fudging, which produces the illusion of choice, but not the substance), or hard railroading techniques may be employed (no, the tea house has no sect in it because the adventure is structured so that the sect is met at location X and it cannot accommodate the players attempting to change that). This is where 'no myth' arose, to deal with that ramp down into the morass.

These can all be classified as 'bad GM, bad game', but there IS a genuine desire in the circles of game designers to make games which reliably return better play experiences for more players. We can argue about success, but clearly even WotC felt this in the design of both 4e and 5e (and maybe 3.5 too, its harder to say).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

History is replete with armed men of violence coming to mutually beneficial and acceptable arrangements, though. Feudal Japan is not remarkable in it's time for it's level of violence. Neither was the Wild West. Both were largely peaceful and most people got along just fine, including the armed ones. You seem to have a Hollywood version of history.

I currently lack statistics or other objective data with which to assess this assertion, but I don't feel that it is backed by anything. Obviously SOME people in all places and times get along.

 

[Sadras]

I'm going to try address everyone's reply as time permits.

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.

I'm stating fudging occurs more often than not, at least by those who voted on the threads linked by lowkey13.
Secret Backstory exists in combat (monster statistics), therefore given the broad definition of MMI that appears to exist within this thread I would think the only way to truly be MMI free as defined, is if there is complete transparency.

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

I'm not here to attack games, and I probably do not know as many games as you do.

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.

I do not believe I'm conflating here.
Hard No's exist in combat. Some actions (attacks) taken by characters have no effect other than to inform the PC that their action (attack) had no effect. I'm saying that is the same as a PC declaring he/she is going to the Tea House to find sect members. At the TH no sect members are present. A new declaration must be made to find these sect members/to hurt the enemy.

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.

Attempt to argue the point not the poster and you will have more success in the debate. I am engaging in earnest.

@Ovinomancer, @pemerton [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] - I will have to get to your replies much later.

 

[pemerton]

I suppose a lot of that depends on your definition of “many”.
But that’s for you and Sadras.

I’m just pointing you to some data outside of your own table.

So you don't think there are many tables that don't fudge? Or that play PbtA games in which the GM never rolls dice?

 

[Sadras]

Apologies, I'm breaking this down.

I would argue that there are other ways to defeat these monsters.

...But there are other ways to find the sect members.

It may be a bit of a puzzle, but 2 things make it not MMI. First you can reason about this, everyone knows, or can learn, that Shambling Mounds and lightning are a bad mix! Once you know this, they're not hard to defeat. Heck, you might not even stumble upon this at all! When the DM says "no, you can't find a way through obstacle X, period." that's a LOT harder constraint.

A DM may also reason why sect members are not at the Tea House.

And as far as I remember, the example used is, the DM adjudication rules that there are no sect members at the TH, not that they cannot keep looking for them in any way shape or form (magic, information gathering - whether it be bribery, seduction, coercion...etc, or visit another location).

 

[Sadras]

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.

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 @chaochou has referred to.

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.

This entire response rests on the word scene.
A new parameter has now been introduced (at least to me) where it is ok to Say No as long as the scene is not resolved via that No. Have I understood you correctly?

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

As per my response to @chaochou, I'm not focusing on a few specific games, I'm taking the definition of MMI some posters have understood it and testing it.

As for how would fudging occur in DW I do not know. Can fudging occur via secret information (i.e. increasing hit points)?

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).

Ok. I don't believe I singled you out and said you fudge.

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

That word many is troublesome.
Is it your tables' many? Is the RPG's community's many? Is it Enworld's RPG community's many? Is it many for the gaming tables using the POTA system?

 

[Sadras]

Ovinomancer, I didn't respond to your rant post upthread as I understand the position the other side is making, I'm just prodding to determine the limits applicable to their MMI definition.

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.

Emphasis mine.
But is not DM-centric adjudication = supply your desired outcome?

We currently have a thread that is dealing with the 5e sneak attack damage on undead and constructs. Their are a wide range of DM adjudications within that thread. Some go by RAW, others say include oozes and/or elementals only, others say only incorporeal undead should be included, others include the whole lot as per 3.5e, others make a decision on the spot depending on the monster.
These all are DM adjudications to supply a desired outcome.

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.

But that is my point. Given that, why do we exempt the combat pillar from this particular definition of MMI?

 

[Sadras]

I'm not sure I'd fully agree that 'most games' have a different mechanics for combat and non-combat.

This is why I'm attempting to understand why the Hard No's in the combat pillar are excluded from the definition of MMI.

@Bedrockgames has a narrow definition of MMI, and then you have a number of posters who ascribe all Say No adjudications to MMI, but appear to limit the definition to only the social and exploration pillars.

We would probably also introduce some procedures into play to reduce the necessity of DMs simply hard adjudicating most everything outside combat and exploration.

Saying Yes though is DM adjudication. This sentence seems to imply you prefer rolling than having a DM automatically Say Yes?