GM fiat - an illustration

[Maxperson]

It is more helpful if you explain what is false about the equivalence. Not just that the 2 things being equated are not identical, but substantively what makes the analogy inapt.

I already have. Sports and board game rules completely contain the entire game. You don't encounter situations where either the rule should not apply, or there is no rule that applies. In an RPG you encounter those situations all the time.

To equate the rules from the former to the rules of the latter is grossly false. They aren't even close to being the same.

Further, RPG rules often, and in the case of D&D every time, tell the DM to ignore or change the rules when situations warrant it. No such rules exists in sports or board games that I am aware of. Though there might be some obscure board games where rules can be changed like that.

I mean, a LOT of stuff is theoretically possible in, say, Basketball, that is not directly addressed by the formal rules, and would thus be deemed as being OK, at least until a new rule was created.

Like what? I watched a lot of basketball in my youth and some games here and there as an adult, and I saw zero times where the refs were stumped on what to do because the rules didn't cover the situation.

 

[Maxperson]

No, as a player in a TTRPG, you are limited to declaring actions for your characters. That's what you can do.

And there are millions of potential actions they can declare for those characters that are not covered by the rules. I encounter them all the time and have to make rulings. And countless more where the rule that covers the situation doesn't make sense in these particular circumstances, and so should be changed in order to be fair about it.

What you're doing is taking the more open possibility of the fiction of the game... freedom that the characters would seemingly possess... and applying that to the players. That because the characters can "go anywhere" that means that the players can "go anywhere" and so on.

No I'm not.

The DM's ability to make rulings when necessary is a rule. That's the game's way of handling things. If there's not a clear rule that governs an outcome, then the DM decides. That's the rule.

That's also DM Fiat.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The literally can't be. There is no set of D&D rules that has been able to encompass everything players try to do in the game with their characters. Can't be done.

You've already described what the rules say to do. That's literally the rules describing the processes of play.

And that's before we even get to Rule Zero, which I know you love... which basically says the DM can do whatever they want.

In that sense, you could argue that all of D&D is contained in one rule.

Because it doesn't? Go watch a football game and see if the refs can penalize a holding call with a 5 yard penalty instead of a 10 yard penalty. They can't. A DM can alter a penalty or bonus if the game circumstances warrant it. Not all situations covered by a rule should be covered by that rule. Some situations have no rule to cover it. I've never seen such a situation in a football game.

Referees in football and other sports have to make judgement calls all the time.

Wait, what? The rule says bonuses don't stack and the DM allows it to stack and that's not a case of changing or removing a rule?

No, I said it absolutely is a case of changing or removing a rule.

It would be socially unfair yes. Most of the time anyway. D&D is by it's nature an exceptions based system, so there could be a monster, item or whatever that specifically supersedes that rule. If it does, then it's fair to use it. Specific beats general is also a rule.

So... if it's okay by the rules, then it's fair... but if it's not okay by the rules, then it's unfair.

This is what I said.

Games aren't designed around extreme corner case scenarios. How unlikely those things are is the the most important part of the discussion. If 99.9% of the time DM fiat doesn't come into play, it doesn't really matter how many different extreme cases you can cram in that last .001%.

I mean, according to @bloodtide it would be an issue 50% of the time.

And although this scenario is unlikely to be common at most tables... once you start adding up all the places where GM fiat leaves things so open, it becomes more and more of a concern. That was, I think, part of the point of @pemerton 's OP... to point out how much is actually going on in a specific example involving one spell.

The rules you say so much about. The alarm makes them aware of the enemy, so no surprise happens. That's the point of the spell. If they could be surprised with the alarm up, they might as well save themselves a spell slot and wake up to the surprise attack instead.

But in the absence of the alarm, couldn't the DM rely on Stealth rolls and Perception rolls to see if anyone wakes up? And let's say the rolls go poorly for the players, couldn't the DM decide that, with the outcome of the action not really in doubt, that the intruder is able to simply kill a PC by slitting their throat?

The alarm spell does not say it prevents surprise. That's your interpretation. It's exactly the kind of "unseen" GM fiat being described in the OP.

No. I'm using the combat rules.

"Any character or monster that doesn't notice a threat is surprised at the start of the encounter." The alarm literally wakes them up and makes them aware of the threat at the start of the encounter, so no surprise.
According to you, that would be unfair since the rules say they aren't surprised.
In accordance with the rules I stated.

Again, that's your interpretation of the rules. But others may interpret things differently.

 

[hawkeyefan]

And there are millions of potential actions they can declare for those characters that are not covered by the rules. I encounter them all the time and have to make rulings. And countless more where the rule that covers the situation doesn't make sense in these particular circumstances, and so should be changed in order to be fair about it.

I don't agree that there are millions of potential actions that can be declared that aren't covered by the rules and therefor need a ruling. Most declared actions don't really need any rulings... they simply happen. I'd expect the vast majority of actions you're talking about to fall into that category.

That's also DM Fiat.

Yes, that's the point.

 

[Maxperson]

You've already described what the rules say to do. That's literally the rules describing the processes of play.

And that's before we even get to Rule Zero, which I know you love... which basically says the DM can do whatever they want.

In that sense, you could argue that all of D&D is contained in one rule.

The rule of DM fiat.

Referees in football and other sports have to make judgement calls all the time.

Not really, no. Their judgment is in, "Did I see it hit the line or not?" or "Did I see holding or not?" They have no judgment to alter the effects of the holding call or what out of bounds means.

No, I said it absolutely is a case of changing or removing a rule.

I misread your response. However, it's not unfair.

So... if it's okay by the rules, then it's fair... but if it's not okay by the rules, then it's unfair.

This is what I said.

But it's not what I said. I've said repeatedly that some rules involve fairness. Others do not.

I mean, according to @bloodtide it would be an issue 50% of the time.

So what. I'm not him. It's not going to be an issue anywhere near 50% of the time. I and the groups I've played in and DM'd have been using alarm since it came out and I can't remember it ever being an issue. It might have been, but nowhere near 50% of the time. I doubt even 1%.

And although this scenario is unlikely to be common at most tables... once you start adding up all the places where GM fiat leaves things so open, it becomes more and more of a concern. That was, I think, part of the point of @pemerton 's OP... to point out how much is actually going on in a specific example involving one spell.

DM fiat is not a concern in general. And all the added up "concern" is still less than 1% of the time, so even this specific instance the DM fiat is just not a concern. If you worry about super long odds, you'll never enjoy the game, or life for that matter.

You should worry about what's likely. Not what isn't.

But in the absence of the alarm, couldn't the DM rely on Stealth rolls and Perception rolls to see if anyone wakes up? And let's say the rolls go poorly for the players, couldn't the DM decide that, with the outcome of the action not really in doubt, that the intruder is able to simply kill a PC by slitting their throat?

Sure. But in the presence of alarm, it's also not in doubt. You wake up and are aware of the threat.

As for the bolded, I've played in some games like that. But we were made aware of that possibility before playing the game. It's not something that is sprung on people.

The alarm spell does not say it prevents surprise. That's your interpretation. It's exactly the kind of "unseen" GM fiat being described in the OP.

it doesn't have to say it, because it simply does it. It says it wakes you up when an intruder shows up. You wake up and are aware of a threat.

You need to take off the blinders and stop looking just at the alarm spell. There are other rules that interact with the spell that determine who is surprised and how, and the alarm spell interacts with those rules in such a way that you are not surprised. You can only be surprised if you are unaware of the threat, which is impossible when the alarm spell wakes you up, instantly making you aware.

Again, that's your interpretation of the rules. But others may interpret things differently.

Yep. I had people arguing with me despite the rule saying this, "You automatically revert if you fall unconscious, drop to 0 hit points, or die." that the druid never hit 0 hit points through damage.

Misinterpretations are interpretations, but are not correct.

 

[loverdrive]

Here's a TRPG with rules that contain the entire game

There doesn't exist a single situation that isn't covered by the rules. What now?

 

[pemerton]

The alarm makes them aware of the enemy, so no surprise happens. That's the point of the spell.

<snip>

The alarm literally wakes them up and makes them aware of the threat at the start of the encounter, so no surprise.

The spell says "an alarm alerts you whenever a creature touches or enters the warded area." It doesn't say that the PCs become aware of the thread - rather, it says that the alarm either rings like a bell or creates a mental ping. But the creature might be invisible, or hiding behind a low wall, or clinging to the shadowy ceiling.

In an RPG, you very clearly cannot do anything. As a player, what you can do is limited. You can declare actions for your character. That's what players do. Some games go a little farther... but D&D is not really one of those.

In the made-up world of the game, the characters can likewise not do anything. They are bound by the rules of the game as well as setting and/or genre logic, and also in many cases, the whim of the DM.

Right.

Some RPGs don't state all of their rules, but leave them to be inferred - this is especially common with respect to the rues for framing/presenting scenes and situations; and rules for determining consequences of players' declared actions for their PCs.

But normally these rules are implicit.

The truth is, RPGs are not anywhere close to being contained by their rules like sports and board games are. They simply are not... it's obvious.

I don't think it's obvious at all. I agree with @hawkeyefan.

 

[pemerton]

once you start adding up all the places where GM fiat leaves things so open, it becomes more and more of a concern. That was, I think, part of the point of @pemerton 's OP... to point out how much is actually going on in a specific example involving one spell.

I wouldn't necessarily say that it's a concern. But it's a phenomenon. And you're correct that I was pointing out how much of it there is, which often goes unremarked and (I therefore infer) unnoticed.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, it probably does. I have my opinion on the matter. My preference.

So what?



No, as a player in a TTRPG, you are limited to declaring actions for your characters. That's what you can do.

Or do you allow your players to declare actions for other players' characters? Or for NPCs? Do the players get to decide who's the ruler of the neighboring kingdom? Can they decide that there's a pub one street over and they know the barkeep? Can they decide that the dragon they're facing has a vulnerability to song? Or that its hoard contains the magical relic they're searching for?

What you're doing is taking the more open possibility of the fiction of the game... freedom that the characters would seemingly possess... and applying that to the players. That because the characters can "go anywhere" that means that the players can "go anywhere" and so on.

But that's not true. It's not even true for the characters. They can only go where the DM will allow them to go... because he can come up with any reason he likes not to allow them to go somewhere. "Oh, you want to book passage to far off Nujab? Sorry, the recent wars have disrupted shipping and you cannot find any ship that will take you." And so on.



The DM's ability to make rulings when necessary is a rule. That's the game's way of handling things. If there's not a clear rule that governs an outcome, then the DM decides. That's the rule.

Same way how in baseball, the strike zone has an approximate location, but each umpire calls it as he wants to. That's the rule... the umpire makes the call.

For my part, the DM should never just make up a reason on the spot why the PCs can't go where they want, and it's unlikely my players would stand for it if I did.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And I think this is all essentially why I would greatly prefer a system like TB2e or Dungeon World to 5e. Lets take DW as an example because it is a bit clearer. There are really no special cases in DW, all play follows one very simple process. This process covers ALL cases, there's no need for anything beyond the rules of DW as it exists. At most you might add additional moves/playbooks, but this is not required in order to adjudicate whatever happens. Why is this? Because DW adjudicates the narrative flow of the game, not the events within the game world. Those are entirely up to the participants to describe, and result in an open-ended narrative produced in a fully reductive fashion. The result is that there's not the type of judgement involved in determining the effectiveness of anyone's actions. I describe doing something which everyone agrees sounds like Defy Danger and we toss the dice to find out what sort of thing gets narrated next. The GM in these games does introduce fiction, and gets to decide the details of consequences (OK, you fell into the pit, do you break your leg, get separated from the rest of the party, get poisoned by a spike, start to drown in the flooded bottom of the pit, these are all GM choices that could be invoked, but they all amount to "you are in worse trouble now").

After decades of dealing with the more trad sort of adjudication that most 5e would represent, I find this narrativist approach personally more enjoyable. Honestly, we become more free to consider both gamist tactics and RP when all these questions of time, space, causality, etc. are basically farmed out to the dice and some principles of play.

That's a big part of why I don't care for that style of game. I want the setting presented much more independently than that.