GM fiat - an illustration

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Not to single you out, but it is interesting how the OP is interpreted as positing a problem. I took it as an observation used to elicit some discussion of a fairly technical point in RPG design and play that is frequently identified as a point of distinction between games.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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, based on playing TB2e and reading it, that the 'structuredness' is more a significant feature of the mechanics vs being overly constraining on the fictional evolution of the game. In TB the GM creates adventures ahead of play. While those are constrained in content, those constraints are not more stringent than the sorts of constraints on building a D&D adventure.

Things like 'camp phase' simply parameterize the resolution of common elements of play. At most in TB you might ask "how would we resolve the use of Aethereal Premonition outside of camp phase?" Well, TB2e has a robust generalized conflict/test mechanism, as well as the concept of a 'good idea', and a rich set of levers for the players to pull on. If active opposition is involved then the GM gets to select opponent's tactics, etc. This should be more than sufficient.

Honestly, TB2e specifically is not my favorite, but it is a solid game, and super interesting in a skilled play sense, because you do get very robust game play where you can weigh your options and make choices on the basis of the rules and be pretty sure your moves have specific consequences.

 

[Cergorach]

This read like D&D (bad) vs. Torchbearer (good) argument.

Every pnp RPG that requires a DM is based on DM-fiat, if it doesn't then it doesn't require a DM at all and the DM should be playing as a player. For a DM it starts with basic things like what kind of adventure are we playing, even if it's published adventures, the DM chooses which one, etc.

It also seems the OP doesn't know a whole lot about D&D, the Alarm spell comes from a time when random encounters were codified in the D&D system. You roll every x hours, depending on environment, day/night cyle and possibly alert status. If you roll Y, you roll on table Z for the actual encounter. Often with a random number of enemies stated in the random encounter.

Essentially what Torchbearer does, is emulate that old skool style of codified gameplay with another system, while D&D 5e has become more freeform from it's early editions. BUT the new DMG 2024 still has random encounter tables, just not everyone uses them anymore. But forgetting about them all together, especially when in relation to the Alarm spell... Kinda of a big oversight on the OPs part...

There are extremes in DMing, from those that follow strictly all the rules, no exceptions and if there are no rules to follow they seem kind of lost. The tyranical DM where things go exactly as the DM wishes and only as the DM wishes or the DM the conforms to all the wishes the players have. None of these extremes generally make for a good game, what's a good game depends on the people playing. When you've played pnp RPGs with your specific group for decades you tend to figure out what each one likes or not. BUT... I've been known to strap players to the hood of a metaphorical car and drive over any lines, Mad Max style, to see where that line is for that particular subject within the group. grins evily I've done that with blood, guts and body horror. Where one of the most composed players in my group pretty much said "Nope! This is WAY too much! Please stop!". But please don't do this with people that aren't your friends (and you've known for a decade+ )...

If you have a problem with the fiat your DM shows, that is an issue with trust or trust misuse, or just poor communication. Imho there is no perfect way to solve this. Because every group dynamic is different, different people expecting different things, having different relationships with each other. A group of friend playing D&D is a whole different beast from a group of random strangers playing the same game with the same DM...

 

[Bill Zebub]

As the unfair 'anything' DM, I can say I lot of players get really upset at the idea that they have to follow the rules, like they have to gain xp in the game play to level up a character; and a DM can just make a character of any level on a whim. And anything else.

And just as many players play the game "on edge", just looking for something to whine, complain and attack the DM with. So as soon as a the DM says "a goblin with a whip" the player will go on a crazy rant about "the rules" or whatever(because the rules don't say goblins can use any weapon...and whips are 'powerful' to clueless players)

That may all be true, but as I've said in many other threads, I don't think the solution to difficult players (including GMs) is more rules. They will still find ways to be difficult. You either roll with it/them, or find other people to hang out with.

I propose/support/like rules that make the game more fun for me, not that try to force other people to play my way.

 

[Maxperson]

Being a fair GM is a goal. Whether or not it can fully be achieved, what matters is that is what the GM should strive for. You can have two GMs one who is more fair and one who is less fair. Also the Gm can solicit player input to gauge how fair he or she is being seen as, and the GM can do things like show what is going on under the hood to help demonstrate how they are making decisions. One question I often ask my players after I propose a ruling, is "Does this sound reasonable and fair?" It can be very helpful because sometimes they don't think it is and I can hash it over with them and propose a new approach.

On fiat, folding the creation of background material and city details into fiat seems a little odd to me. I tend to think of Fiat as more about the GM brining down their authority, frequently in ways that go against the rules themselves

I've noticed that a lot of people also mix up fair and equitable. Everyone using the same method to roll the dice for stats is fair. The results may not be equitable. But every stat rolling thread you see folks saying that rolling for stats is unfair.

 

[Maxperson]

So when it comes to games, most of the time when we talk about being fair, we’re talking about playing by the rules. The rules define what’s fair for play.

No they don't. I can't tell you how much I disagree with the idea that the rules determine what is fair and what isn't. They can help with fairness, but they are not fair themselves. And I've seen some very unfair rules. The alignment change penalty of 1e comes quickly to mind there.

 

[TiQuinn]

Not to single you out, but it is interesting how the OP is interpreted as positing a problem. I took it as an observation used to elicit some discussion of a fairly technical point in RPG design and play that is frequently identified as a point of distinction between games.

As one of the people who perceived the thread as being about a problem, it's because I took the phrasing of a sentence like this, with no other context, to be a suggestion that a problem exists.

My experience is that, often, many cases of GM fiat go unnoticed, or at least unremarked upon.

 

[loverdrive]

A good, true DM is impartial and neutral.

GM is controlling opposition. That is, by definition, not neutral nor impartial. For obvious reasons. I honestly can't believe that I have to spell it out.

You can have an impartial arbiter between two opposing teams of players, sure. Too bad there's no Team Monsters in dnd, yeah.

(And even that, with caveats. I can say for myself, that if you'd plot out a graph of how often I make rulings in someone's favor, the result would strongly correlate with how pretty they are)

 

[Bedrockgames]

GM is controlling opposition. That is, by definition, not neutral nor impartial. For obvious reasons. I honestly can't believe that I have to spell it out.

You can have an impartial arbiter between two opposing teams of players, sure. Too bad there's no Team Monsters in dnd, yeah.

But you can more or less fair and impartial in running the world. The aim of the GM isn't to kill the party. So if you have a GM who is clearly favoring monsters, favoring one player over another, or favoring certain comes, that isn't a fair or impartial GM. If you have a GM who is working very hard to maintain a level of neutrality while in this position, we describe that GM as fair and impartial.

 

[bloodtide]

If you have a problem with the fiat your DM shows, that is an issue with trust or trust misuse, or just poor communication. Imho there is no perfect way to solve this. Because every group dynamic is different, different people expecting different things, having different relationships with each other. A group of friend playing D&D is a whole different beast from a group of random strangers playing the same game with the same DM...

Rules help some people: the people that put the rules high up on a pedestal.

In a lot of RPGS the GM can do whatever they wish on a whim, and the players are utterly powerless to do anything other then complain or leave the game.

With the High Rules, a player could snap quick and say "DM you can't do that per the rules on page 11!". And the DM will hang their head in shame and say "Your right player, I made a mistake, I'm so sorry. The rules must be followed at all times, even by me. I will change everything to be rules compliant. All Hail the Rules!"

GM is controlling opposition. That is, by definition, not neutral nor impartial. For obvious reasons. I honestly can't believe that I have to spell it out.

You can have an impartial arbiter between two opposing teams of players, sure. Too bad there's no Team Monsters in dnd, yeah.

The DM is controlling the opposition neutral and impartial.

That may all be true, but as I've said in many other threads, I don't think the solution to difficult players (including GMs) is more rules. They will still find ways to be difficult. You either roll with it/them, or find other people to hang out with.

I propose/support/like rules that make the game more fun for me, not that try to force other people to play my way.

I agree that more rules is often not a good answer to many game problems.

This read like D&D (bad) vs. Torchbearer (good) argument.

Of course.

But it does depend what you see as a "problem". They see it as a problem that a DM can just make an orc with a flaming sword attack the PCs "out of thin air", for example.

Every pnp RPG that requires a DM is based on DM-fiat, if it doesn't then it doesn't require a DM at all and the DM should be playing as a player. For a DM it starts with basic things like what kind of adventure are we playing, even if it's published adventures, the DM chooses which one, etc.

This is the key point: in many such games the GM is just a player. That is they follow game rules exactly like a player does in other games.