GM fiat - an illustration

[hawkeyefan]

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.

The argument is not that GM fiat is negative in and of itself. It's about how present it may be in a given rules system to the point where it exists in places where people no longer even see it.

The amount of input points for GM fiat in the 5e Alarm spell that was cited are significant enough that the GM can absolutely render the spell ineffective in a number of ways and can do so simply by deciding to do so.

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.

I think that @pemerton is very aware of that. I think this is just another illustration of legacy elements of D&D that remain even though they no longer really fit the actual processes of play.

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...

Not really... because as you say, random encounter tables are not a required expectation of play, and most people don't use them in favor of a more freeform style of play. If they were required, the players would understand the odds of triggering a random encounter and so on. If a GM is bound by such rules, they cannot simply bypass the alarm spell because they've decided it will be "challenging" or "fun" for the players.

They would be required to roll to see if an encounter happens, then the creature(s) involved in the encounter, their disposition, and their proximity to the area warded by the Alarm spell. If all of those things are simply up to the GM, and the only expectation is that the resultant encounter be "fun", then what does the Alarm spell actually accomplish?

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.

If I break the rules in basketball, I'm not playing fairly. I may be getting away with traveling, or maybe an unnoticed foul. If I break the rules in Monopoly, I'm not playing fairly. I may be skimming money from the bank or maybe moving an extra space than the dice indicate to avoid paying rent and instead landing on a property that's up for sale.

Yes, the rules very much tell us what is fair or not. Looking at sports is a really good indicator of this... times where the application of the rules is a bit unclear, where some amount of human judgment is needed... does the amount of contact in basketball indicate a foul? Is a pitch a ball or strike? These are among the most controversial areas of the game. Where the rules are the fuzziest.

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.

If it is a problem, it is in the amount of GM fiat that actually exists versus the amount that's perceived.

 

[thefutilist]

@Manbearcat

I think I agree but we'll see.


If fiat is used to force outcomes based on stuff like, what the GM wants to happen, to keep the plot moving, to provide a challenge. Then I agree that that specific approach isn't conducive to challenge based play. The correct attitude would seem to be something along the lines of 'you're not here to win (or entertain) but to see if the players can overcome stuff as fairly as possible and according to your best judgement.'


Which isn't enough alone but it's the guiding principle by which subsequent procedures and principles are judged.


To give an example using the 5E alarm.


The party is being pursued by Henrik Headhunter but they need to go into the Dungeon anyway. The Mage sets an alarm at the entrance. The GM must now use fiat to decide whether Henrik triggers the alarm when he enters the Dungeon after them. They could for instance decide based on some combination of what they know about Henrik and how cunningly they judge the alarm to be placed. They know Henrik is smart and capable and they don't think the alarm was cunningly placed and there is at least a possible way for Henrik to avoid it and so Henrik slips past undetected.


That's a case of fiat use that illustrates, to me, why you'd want to play a challenge based RPG.

So if you're saying the fiat in the Henrik example is bogus then we have a disagreement. If you're not then we might just by taking past each other. I agree that all the examples you gave were non-conductive to challenge based play but the above might get to the crux of it.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Yeah, more-or-less.

I thought the example might be interesting, too, for showing how non-GM-fiat based resolution can operate outside of combat (where it is widely taken for granted, due to the wargame-y origins of many RPG combat resolution systems).

having a specific Camp action tends to mean that you are likewise constrained from doing other actions.

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.

What types of actions are not allowed in Torchbearer?

 

[pemerton]

I think that's a fair comment, but doesn't point to a problem, just a play-style.

The OP doesn't set out to point to a problem.

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.

"Important to the plot" seems fairly closely related to GM fiat - as in, it presumably is the GM who is authoring the plot and then using fiat to make sure that the plot plays out as authored. And "arbitrarily nerfing" seems like the connecting of fiat to fair play, as per the OP.

Though an interesting feature of the Alarm spell is that, in some ways, it pushes against "let the players do cool things", in that the "cool thing" that relates from use of the Alarm spell is a reduction in threat and excitement.

It seems to belong more to a "skilled play" paradigm.

 

[TiQuinn]

What types of actions are not allowed in Torchbearer?

I don’t know, Pemerton, when do monsters attack 1 second after the Alarm spell ends?

 

[Maxperson]

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.

No, we are not controlling the opposition. We are controlling the world in order to make a fun and fair game. D&D is not DM vs. Player.

As an example, I don't give a fig if the players struggle with the encounter, come up with a great plan to make it a breeze, or find a way to avoid it. It's not my job to care about that. It's my job to find a way to make whatever they come up with(struggle, breeze or avoidance) fun. So even though I'm controlling the monsters they fight, I'm not in opposition to the players at any time during the fight.

 

[Maxperson]

If I break the rules in basketball, I'm not playing fairly. I may be getting away with traveling, or maybe an unnoticed foul. If I break the rules in Monopoly, I'm not playing fairly. I may be skimming money from the bank or maybe moving an extra space than the dice indicate to avoid paying rent and instead landing on a property that's up for sale.

Yep. Sports games and board games are like that. Roleplaying games are very much not. You cannot equate one type of game with the other. They don't line up like that.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yep. Sports games and board games are like that. Roleplaying games are very much not. You cannot equate one type of game with the other. They don't line up like that.

Sure I can. I just did. That it's not convenient for your argument doesn't mean it's not relevant.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure I can. I just did. That it's not convenient for your argument doesn't mean it's not relevant.

Yes you did, but you are wrong. Contained games like sports or board games just aren't the same as uncontained RPGs. You can equate them all day long, but you will be wrong when you do.

False equivalences are false.

 

[pemerton]

I don’t know, Pemerton, when do monsters attack 1 second after the Alarm spell ends?

Suppose that an assassin is following the PCs. And watches the Alarm spell be cast. And then tracks the passage of time (using an hourglass, or their near-mystical time sense, or an ability to detect the magic of the spell, or . . .).

That foe would attack immediately upon the spell dropping (ie so that it won't trigger, but the PCs are still in their restful state rather than a prepared state).