GM fiat - an illustration

[hawkeyefan]

Again, what is the problem?

There’s no problem so much as it is a comparison of two different approaches to play. Depending on one’s given preferences, one or the other approach may be problematic.

One is describing a method with open procedures, allowing players to understand the impact of their decisions on play. It is clear and allows them to make informed decisions for play. When we reach some point in play, the players can look back at what happened and know why things are the way they are.

The other approach has many areas that are unknown to the players (or, very likely unknown). This leads to less informed decisions with unclear impacts on play. When we reach some point of play and look back, there is enough information missing that we cannot say why play has arrived at this point.

 

[TiQuinn]

@bloodtide @hawkeyefan Thank you!

You helped clarify what I wasn’t getting with this post!

 

[aramis erak]

The issue with Alarm is contextual - if the GM is a fully procedural type, the encounter checks determine when the Alarm spell might happen.
That the spell takes an uninterupted 8 minutes, an amount below the time between encounter checks in all the editions I recall the random encounter checks mechanics, means that it's most likely going to go off, simply due to the time between checks. (At a minimum, it's 10 min between encounter checks.)

Thus it's being by fiat is only true for certain playstyles and GMing styles.

 

[thefutilist]

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.

Well different procedures lead to different types of player contributions but I'm not sure what that has to do with fiat. Fiat just means you have authority over some fictional thing we're talking about.


To create a simple version of the rules above:


If you have the time and safety to set camp you also have the time and safety to cast a spell of protection


The fiat is with whoever gets to say there is time and safety. The non-fiat bit is that this is a package deal and you get to cast a protection spell. You can't set camp and not have the time and safety to cast the spell.

All that's really happening in the Torchbearer example is that the system routine is longer before being passed back to a fiat decision. It's not fiat v no fiat but where the fiat is placed and what kind of fiat.

 

[AnotherGuy]

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

Yes, otherwise you abuse the fair play notion.

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

The DM may
(1) Handwave the long rest as all good with no RE roll due to pacing, RL time-constraints, nothing prepped...etc.
Conversely can this be done in TB or is the table forced to participate as per the game rules?

(2) Unload a prepared encounter whether it be to for balance purposes (resource attrition), to inflect the danger of the terrain, the encounter is part of exposition ...etc

(3) Utilise RE to determine potential encounters.

In either of these three instances, the Alarm spell is not necessary for them to take effect.

* 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?​

Once the potential intruder is established, the DM, via guidance of the monster fluff and stat block determines the approach taken by the intruder.

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

See below

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.

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

Given your background in law do you feel the legal term "reasonable person" is largely unconstrained and a pretty loose notion?
I accept that a reasonable DM engages in fair play.
If not, then either the DM is young and/or inexperienced and/or there are other issues at play.

By choosing to use the spell, does a player actually affect the risk to their position in the game?

Yes of course. One need not use an Alarm spell, a party could set up a rotational watch, or select a location that could minimise the risk of potential intruders (i.e. ranger input)...etc
The party's actions have great importance in a game where fair play is expected.
One, I would think, only question it if they did not enjoy the style and/or believing that a reasonable amount of fair play could not be achieved.
Even TB relies on fair play to some extent, however miniscule.

 

[loverdrive]

I think there's a deeper problem: the very notion of "fair play". Because it's not a thing that can possibly exist, unless you change the structure of the game closer to a wargame with two opposing sides.

For obvious reasons, GM cannot ever be neutral. Because you can't be neutral when you are explicitly representing one of the sides.

 

[loverdrive]

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.

I must say that while on paper the GM's decision making is unconstrained, in reality you can't really do any of those circumventing measures. Because you'd get called a jerk and the players will get one step closer to deciding that maybe just grabbing a few beers and playing cards all night would be a better use of their time than playing this game.

That, I think, is the biggest problem with "unconstrained decision making": it's very much constrained and the actual possibility space for stuff happening in the game is significantly less. Monsters cannot ever possibly circumvent Alarm spell, because you cannot ever possibly circumvent being a jerk if they do that.

 

[AnotherGuy]

@loverdrive is it your opinion then that D&D as is, is but an exercise in a varied significant amount of illusionism?

 

[loverdrive]

@loverdrive is it your opinion then that D&D as is, is but an exercise in a varied amount of illusionism?

Sure, I think that'd be a fair assessment (which, I must say, is not a value judgment, just something I vehemently dislike)

Although, say, B/X can easily be played basically like a boardgame where players basically gamble at whether the next door they'll bash will be good or not and the GM is actively trying to kill them.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Sure, I think that'd be a fair assessment (which, I must say, is not a value judgment, just something I vehemently dislike)

Although, say, B/X can easily be played basically like a boardgame where players basically gamble at whether the next door they'll bash will be good or not and the GM is actively trying to kill them.

That is if they are following a module right? Unless the rules state the DM roles for RE behind each door.