GM fiat - an illustration

[TiQuinn]

This thread is about identifying and analysing GM fiat as a way of establishing the shared fiction in RPGing. My experience is that, often, many cases of GM fiat go unnoticed, or at least unremarked upon. Here's one example, that I posted in a recent thread:



In this post I want to present another example, and say a bit about it. My example is the Alarm spell, from D&D 5e:

Casting Time: 1 Minute​

Range/Area: 30 ft. (20 ft. )​

Duration: 8 Hours​

​

You set an alarm against intrusion. Choose a door, a window, or an area within range that is no larger than a 20-foot Cube. Until the spell ends, an alarm alerts you whenever a creature touches or enters the warded area. When you cast the spell, you can designate creatures that won’t set off the alarm. You also choose whether the alarm is audible or mental:​

​

Audible Alarm. The alarm produces the sound of a handbell for 10 seconds within 60 feet of the warded area.​

​

Mental Alarm. You are alerted by a mental ping if you are within 1 mile of the warded area. This ping awakens you if you’re asleep.​

On its fact, this spell looks like something that a player could use to help control the risk environment for their PC. But on closer analysis, it turns almost entirely on GM decision-making that is significantly unconstrained.

For instance,

* Does the player's character have an uninterrupted minute of time to cast the spell?​

​

* Does any potential intruder come within 8 hours, or do they turn up (say) 8 hours and 5 minutes after the spell was cast?​

​

* Does a potential intruder come within the warded area, or open the warded portal? Or do they sneak around the warded portal, or inspect/attack from outside the area?​

​

* If the caster (and friends) are asleep, and are woken by this spell, how much can the intruder accomplish while they rouse themselves?​

All of this depends on GM decision-making. That decision-making is largely unconstrained, except by some pretty loose notions of "fair play". By choosing to use the spell, does a player actually affect the risk to their position in the game? Does this happen in any way other than by invoking the GM's notion of "fair play"? Perhaps if the GM is relying on a very precise timeline for introducing threats, the 1 minute and/or 8 hour issue might be obviated. But that still leaves the other issues.

Here is a superficially similar spell from a different game - Torchbearer 2e's Aetherial Premonition:

The caster sets an aetherial alarm in the Otherworld to provide warning against approaching danger.​

​

AETHERIAL PREMONITION EFFECT​

This spell wards a camp, house or the like. It creates the sound of a ringing bell in the event of trouble. Cast this spell as you enter camp (before rolling for camp events) and the spell grants +1 to the camp events roll. The watch in camp are granted +1D to tests to avert disaster.​

The fiction of this spell is very much the same as that of the D&D Alarm spell. But the gameplay is different:

* The player is permitted to have their PC attempt to cast the spell as part of the declaration that the party is camping - if the roll to cast fails, then the GM might narrate that as an interruption of the casting, but there is no unilateral power the GM to narrate some interruption analogous to something disturbing the caster during the 1 minute casting of Alarm;​

​

* The way the use of the spell affects the risk to which the player's character is exposed is clear, and not subject to GM decision-making: when the GM makes the camp event roll, as part of the process of determining what happens during the camp phase (which can include resting in town - "camp phase" and "camp event" are semi-technical terms), the player benefits from a +1, which reduces the likelihood of bad results and increases the likelihood of good results;​

​

* If disaster strikes (due to a poor camp event roll), the benefit of being alerted is clear: the watch gain a bonus die in their pool when they declare some action in response​

It's possible, in TB2e, for a wily intruder to avoid the alarm, but that would be a narration adopted after the camp event roll is made and an unhappy event results despite the bonus. And it is possible for the watch to be too distracted or drowsy or whatever to effectively respond, despite the alarm; but again, that would be a narration adopted after their test to avert disaster fails, notwithstanding the +1D bonus.

The GM is not at liberty just to narrate things in such a way that the spell makes no difference.

Some RPGers might prefer the GM fiat-free Torchbearer 2e approach; others might prefer the approach of the Alarm spell, which puts some parameters around the GM's narration (eg the GM can't just narrate someone wandering into the warded area 4 hours after the spell is cast without also narrating that the alarm is triggered) but otherwise leaves the GM free to introduce a threat, or not, that does or does not trigger the alarm, as they see fit.

But I think the difference between the two approaches is clear.

The only difference I’m seeing is that D&D does not have a Camp action and Torchbearer does. To me, you see that in fairly restrictive game systems where each action is prescribed and other types of actions are just not allowed, or hand waved.

I’m also missing the “So what” statement here. So I’ll just ask the question:

So what?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

No, precisely the opposite. My point was that the fiat-less mechanic demonstrated cannot do some of the things the alarm spell as presented could. I am absolutely not making the system doesn't matter point, I'm saying this fiat/no-fiat divide isn't a particularly incisive divide (or at least, it's insufficient by itself).

I'm not making that argument. I pointed out two specific cases that are not possible with the mechanic demonstrated and both exist in the realm of "fiat" suggested, but are completely different in play. My point was that the realm of "fiat" thus described is not monolithic, nor particularly useful as a category division. The two cases I presented were these:

1. The alarm spell is a flag presented to the GM, announcing "I am interested in being attacked at night" and puts a request or obligation for them to facilitate that happening. In this hypothetical game, the constraints the mechanic puts on the GM are about what kind of thing they should present to the players.
2. The alarm spell is part of a larger chain of preparations, that based on established circumstance, cuts off the possibility of any ambush occurring. In this game, the GM is constrained by some other set of expectations about the fiction or chains of pre-established events/causality.

My point was that these are so different that lumping together as two examples of the same thing is too reductive to be useful. Imagine a player expecting the latter case in the first game, or vice versa. They would be getting literally the opposite of what they expected/desired when the mechanic was invoked. They aren't identical cases, and require different actions from both players and GMs, and lumping them into the same category on the basis that GM and/or have roughly equivalent "power" in both vs. the TB example leaves too much out.

Sorry, I don't see those points made in the post I was responding to. I get the impression this is all referencing other discussions you all are using as context which I've not read. Anyway,...

I'm not entirely sure we're on the same wavelength here. Getting back to the topic introduced in the OP, my understanding is that games like 5e (D&D generally) focus on things related to the fictional space itself, time, space, physical situation, etc. Games like TB2e (or PbtAs and such) focus on the narrative development of play, the who, what, and why.

This foundational difference has very different implications for the nature of the process of the GM saying stuff. Both of these approaches rely on some type of GM framing of situation. In @pemerton 's alarm example we see 2 different sets of constraints and concerns.

In the 5e version the GM is concerned about explaining the fiction in terms of describing a scenario in which causality is the constraint. If a monster attacks camp during the duration of the alarm, then X must result, and certain procedures are followed. If the GM has some agenda related to narrative, they're going to utilize their framing/authorial power over time, space, etc. to move it forward. Indeed they must make these determinations.

TB2e assumes that the narrative is purely discovered. Some mechanics will establish the outcome in a mechanical sense, and the participants are relatively free to describe that, with potential for the fiction to further shape the downstream narrative.

I think the one point of contention is really about GM agendas. The two processes, IME, provide very different points of interaction, with TB2e providing much less leverage, and less directed narrative.

 

[Manbearcat]

The only difference I’m seeing is that D&D does not have a Camp action and Torchbearer does. To me, you see that in fairly restrictive game systems where each action is prescribed and other types of actions are just not allowed, or hand waved.

I’m also missing the “So what” statement here. So I’ll just ask the question:

So what?

The impact on play (for each participant) is much more significant than you're imagining. Let us take the typical deployment of Alarm so that we've got an analogous situation.

TORCHBEARER

* We know exactly how Aetherial Premonition (Alarm-equivalent) will structurally impact play. This is because (a) Camp phase is a structured segment of play with explicit procedures to resolve its constituent parts until you move out of Camp phase and back to Adventure phase. Further, (b) AP does exactly what it does mechanically and those benefits are table-facing. Finally, (c) we know on failure of Tests (like casting AP) should generate Success w/ Condition or Twists (new situations that complicate matters in interesting, premise/theme-relevant ways) in roughly equal proportion. We also have clear advice and constraints on what constitutes good handling of Twists. Finally, we've got codified, table-facing structure for each component part that attaches to this stuff (such as what each Condition does and how to clear a given Condition including the cost, the test required, and the order of clearing).

D&D 5e (or pick your non-4e D&D)

* Ok, so we're trying to trigger a Long Rest for full resource refresh. Let us go with the 20 ft cube warded.

* Questions the GM answers based on their personal mental model of the shared imagined space:

1) Does a creature attack within 8 hours?

2) Does a group of creatures attack?

3a) If so, what is the roster of creatures and do they have access to ranged capability that will circumvent the Alarm spells area of effect, thereby interrupting the Long Rest and overcoming the ward?

3b) Alternatively, do they perhaps even have Dispel Magic to overcome the ward and if they've got that, what is the rest of their spell loadout?

4) Does a creature or group of creatures (including roster/capabilities) attack at 8 minutes and 1 second, allowing for the Long Rest to go off, but ablating the newly gained full resource refresh for the coming adventuring day? If so, back to roster/budget questions.

5) Alternatively, does some exploration-based threat emerge that renders Alarm irrelevant because it is not creatures; sinkhole, landslide, avalanche, flash flood, volcanic eruption, magical phenomenon (any number of things)?

6) Is the area cursed?

Now if you're playing map & key D&D, 5 and 6 in particular should have those potential situations telegraphed such that players can (and should) suss them out and make plans accordingly (including pushing on or making camp elsewhere). Further, good map & key D&D should have clear Wandering Monster clock mechanics such that players can determine the dynamics of 1-3 and play accordingly. However, let us not pretend that there isn't an abundance of D&D advice out there (particularly of the AP variety or GM Storytime centered play) that instructs GMs to prevent Long Rest refreshes via monsters or environmental hazards or curses because they will create anticlimax for BBEG fights or harm adventuring pacing or something along those lines. That advice is everywhere, has been for decades, and persists to this day.

The point of the lead post (I'm confident, but willing to be corrected) is that these two modes of Alarm spell action resolution + gameplay loop + overall structure regarding resource refresh are extremely different from one another in all three of (i) the nature of the moment of play/decision-points as it pertains to players, (ii) the principal role of and constraints on the GM, (iii) the principal role of the structure of play.

 

[TiQuinn]

The impact on play (for each participant) is much more significant than you're imagining. Let us take the typical deployment of Alarm so that we've got an analogous situation.

TORCHBEARER

* We know exactly how Aetherial Premonition (Alarm-equivalent) will structurally impact play. This is because (a) Camp phase is a structured segment of play with explicit procedures to resolve its constituent parts until you move out of Camp phase and back to Adventure phase. Further, (b) AP does exactly what it does mechanically and those benefits are table-facing. Finally, (c) we know on failure of Tests (like casting AP) should generate Success w/ Condition or Twists (new situations that complicate matters in interesting, premise/theme-relevant ways) in roughly equal proportion. We also have clear advice and constraints on what constitutes good handling of Twists. Finally, we've got codified, table-facing structure for each component part that attaches to this stuff (such as what each Condition does and how to clear a given Condition including the cost, the test required, and the order of clearing).

I'm still waiting for a simple problem to be stated prior to the wall of text.

I feel like I'm reading a Linux manual.

What is the problem this approach is trying to solve? I feel like this thread is trying to point out a problem with Alarm that Aetherial Premonition (what a name) is resolving. Can you tell me what that problem is?

D&D 5e (or pick your non-4e D&D)

* Ok, so we're trying to trigger a Long Rest for full resource refresh. Let us go with the 20 ft cube warded.

* Questions the GM answers based on their personal mental model of the shared imagined space:

1) Does a creature attack within 8 hours?

2) Does a group of creatures attack?

3a) If so, what is the roster of creatures and do they have access to ranged capability that will circumvent the Alarm spells area of effect, thereby interrupting the Long Rest and overcoming the ward?

3b) Alternatively, do they perhaps even have Dispel Magic to overcome the ward and if they've got that, what is the rest of their spell loadout?

4) Does a creature or group of creatures (including roster/capabilities) attack at 8 minutes and 1 second, allowing for the Long Rest to go off, but ablating the newly gained full resource refresh for the coming adventuring day? If so, back to roster/budget questions.

5) Alternatively, does some exploration-based threat emerge that renders Alarm irrelevant because it is not creatures; sinkhole, landslide, avalanche, flash flood, volcanic eruption, magical phenomenon (any number of things)?

6) Is the area cursed?

Now if you're playing map & key D&D, 5 and 6 in particular should have those potential situations telegraphed such that players can (and should) suss them out and make plans accordingly (including pushing on or making camp elsewhere). Further, good map & key D&D should have clear Wandering Monster clock mechanics such that players can determine the dynamics of 1-3 and play accordingly. However, let us not pretend that there isn't an abundance of D&D advice out there (particularly of the AP variety or GM Storytime centered play) that instructs GMs to prevent Long Rest refreshes via monsters or environmental hazards or curses because they will create anticlimax for BBEG fights or harm adventuring pacing or something along those lines. That advice is everywhere, has been for decades, and persists to this day.

The point of the lead post (I'm confident, but willing to be corrected) is that these two modes of Alarm spell action resolution + gameplay loop + overall structure regarding resource refresh are extremely different from one another in all three of (i) the nature of the moment of play/decision-points as it pertains to players, (ii) the principal role of and constraints on the GM, (iii) the principal role of the structure of play.

Most of these are determined by random encounter rolls. Environmental effects can be random encounter rolls as well, though less common. However, if the party is adventuring on a volcanic island, it's likely that the rules for the module include some sort of timed eruption mechanic. Even if it's a custom adventure, it's up to the DM to create those random chances prior to play.

The 8 minute and 1 second scenario seems like an invented scenario that I don't think I've ever seen in play. Is this a hypothetical problem or an actual problem being solved.

There's bad advice everywhere. That is not necessarily a problem with the system. And again, having a specific Camp action tends to mean that you are likewise constrained from doing other actions.

Again, what is the problem?

 

[Maxperson]

GM Fiat is definitely a thing in most games. At least most games that include Rule 0.

What is "GM/DM Fiat?"

While I explore this site, I occasionally see the phrase "GM fiat" (or "DM fiat", for D&D questions and answers), but I don't know the exact meaning of that. I want to know the meaning of that

rpg.stackexchange.com

DM fiat is the best tool in the game. It's also the one most easily abused.

 

[Theory of Games]

DM fiat is the best tool in the game. It's also the one most easily abused.

Agreed 100%. There needs to be a careful balance between GM Fiat and Player Agency.

 

[bloodtide]

But I think the difference between the two approaches is clear.

It should be very clear to all.

1. A unique role playing game experience simulating reality like nothing else
2. Like a board game

I'm still waiting for a simple problem to be stated prior to the wall of text.
Again, what is the problem?

As a member of the other side, I can show this.

In Touchbearer nearly everything that happens is framed or controlled by the rules. So the GM, exactly like a player in any game, just does what the rules tell the GM to do. The GM can't really just do "anything". If the rules tell the GM that they can make a "tough encounter", then the GM is free to make that encounter under all the framed strict encounter rules. And the rules are written, and interpenetrated so the GM has very little freedom, in a general sense.

D&D has very little rules outside of combat adventure rules. A DM can do whatever they want or wish on a whim. There are just about no real rules that say what a DM can or can not do. And the few in print often say things like "it's not a good idea to just kill off the PCs for no reason." Note there is no rule that says a DM CAN'T do that, for example.

So for TB(generically as I don't know the game rules), it is just following a chain of rules for Camp->Alarm spell->camp actions->camp events->encounter. All by dice rolls. Both the GM and players can be on the same page of the rules and know what will happen. The rules and dice rolls will tell the GM "a bad event happens", and the GM is free to make any 'bad event' they want, under the strict rules of 'a bad event'.

For D&D: The DM just does whatever they want on a whim.

And for many the direct above is a problem. The DM can "just say" anything happens. There is no real limit as to what the DM can "just say" happens. Maybe a some DMs care about "fair play" or "balance" or something like that: but they don't have too...

To the TB player, they would say they can't play a game where they have to follow the rules vs a GM that can just 'do anything' on a whim.

 

[Morrus]

All of this depends on GM decision-making. That decision-making is largely unconstrained, except by some pretty loose notions of "fair play".

I think that's a fair comment, but doesn't point to a problem, just a play-style. The play-style is 'let the players do cool things'. So unless it was really important to the plot that the alarm not go off, the alarm will go off. Because arbitrarily nerfing the features that players have chosen is just... not really fun for anybody.

 

[Maxperson]

It should be very clear to all.

1. A unique role playing game experience simulating reality like nothing else
2. Like a board game


As a member of the other side, I can show this.

In Touchbearer nearly everything that happens is framed or controlled by the rules. So the GM, exactly like a player in any game, just does what the rules tell the GM to do. The GM can't really just do "anything". If the rules tell the GM that they can make a "tough encounter", then the GM is free to make that encounter under all the framed strict encounter rules. And the rules are written, and interpenetrated so the GM has very little freedom, in a general sense.

D&D has very little rules outside of combat adventure rules. A DM can do whatever they want or wish on a whim. There are just about no real rules that say what a DM can or can not do. And the few in print often say things like "it's not a good idea to just kill off the PCs for no reason." Note there is no rule that says a DM CAN'T do that, for example.

So for TB(generically as I don't know the game rules), it is just following a chain of rules for Camp->Alarm spell->camp actions->camp events->encounter. All by dice rolls. Both the GM and players can be on the same page of the rules and know what will happen. The rules and dice rolls will tell the GM "a bad event happens", and the GM is free to make any 'bad event' they want, under the strict rules of 'a bad event'.

For D&D: The DM just does whatever they want on a whim.

And for many the direct above is a problem. The DM can "just say" anything happens. There is no real limit as to what the DM can "just say" happens. Maybe a some DMs care about "fair play" or "balance" or something like that: but they don't have too...

To the TB player, they would say they can't play a game where they have to follow the rules vs a GM that can just 'do anything' on a whim.

I think that if the DM is using fiat on whims, that DM is probably not doing a very good job DMing. Fiat is the best, and most powerful tool the the DM's toolbox, but it has to be used carefully because of its power.

 

[bloodtide]

I think that if the DM is using fiat on whims, that DM is probably not doing a very good job DMing. Fiat is the best, and most powerful tool the the DM's toolbox, but it has to be used carefully because of its power.

Well, the OP here is using "DM Fiat" as "the DM taking any action independent of the rules".

A game rule can tell a GM what to do within some very set limits.

Or a game can have nearly no 'GM rules', so the GM can to whatever they want absolutely on a whim. This is "dm fiat" to some as the GM is not following any rules.