GM fiat - an illustration

[hawkeyefan]

Well when it's made up, how and the reasons/criteria/principles matter.

To use my example from several posts back. If the GM creates a competent hunter at the start of the scenario. Then the hunter is tracking the players and the GM uses what they know about the hunter and how the alarm is positioned to make the call. That's very different from deciding they want to have a fight, so then they create someone who can bypasses the alarm.

One is taking the fiction into account to decide what happens, the other is deciding what they want to happen and then creating the fiction.

EDIT: The first is is why I roleplay, the second is destructive of the medium.

I think what you're saying here is that the process of play matters quite a bit... and I agree. How such elements are determined and when matters quite a bit for how things play out at the table, and how they feel.

There is the matter of if/when and how the hunter may have been introduced to the players. If they are unaware of the hunter, even if the GM has been planning this all along, then when he is introduced, it will seem no different than if the GM just made him up on the spot.

I think signaling threats ahead of time is a key component of allowing players to make informed decisions.

Regarding your edit, I don't know if I'd say the second is destructive of the medium... it seems pretty widespread.

I think it's unreasonable to assume the DM will be a jerk on purpose.

So you're defending this method of heavy GM fiat, but then saying the DM is a jerk for exercising that authority?

So why not simply constrain the GM's actions?

 

[pemerton]

So you are alerted that something is there, but not aware that something is there? And that makes sense to you? Also, invisible is irrelevant. You don't have to see the threat to be aware of it. An invisible creature still does not get surprise on you.

If you are alerted to the presence of the trigger, you are aware of the threat.

So are you arguing that, if a character is successfully stealthy, they don't trigger the Alarm spell?

Or are you arguing that an Alarm spell breaks stealth? I don't see where the spell rules say that. Nor, to me, does it make any sense. Just because the alarm starts ringing, doesn't mean that I spot the ninja.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think part of being a fair and impartial GM is giving the players plans a very fair hearing. If the Gm is putting out ones they consider more fun ahead of victories the players rightfully should have earned, they aren’t gaming fairly. This is less about rules and more about paying attention to what is happening in the setting and what actions the players are taking. Also while rules aren’t everything they are how the players often expect the world to operate so any change or rules adjustment really needs to be done variously IMO

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think what you're saying here is that the process of play matters quite a bit... and I agree. How such elements are determined and when matters quite a bit for how things play out at the table, and how they feel.

There is the matter of if/when and how the hunter may have been introduced to the players. If they are unaware of the hunter, even if the GM has been planning this all along, then when he is introduced, it will seem no different than if the GM just made him up on the spot.

I think signaling threats ahead of time is a key component of allowing players to make informed decisions.

Regarding your edit, I don't know if I'd say the second is destructive of the medium... it seems pretty widespread.



So you're defending this method of heavy GM fiat, but then saying the DM is a jerk for exercising that authority?

So why not simply constrain the GM's actions?

I'm saying if the DM is deciding in the moment (as opposed to via prep prior to play) to disregard the player's prophylactic actions, they are being a jerk. Stuff like that should IMO be determined either as part of prep (so it's not directly responding to PC action) or determined via random roll (so the DM is not making a specific choice to screw them over and letting fate decide). The player, for their part, should IMO trust in that process, of which they should been aware since session 0.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Regarding your edit, I don't know if I'd say the second is destructive of the medium... it seems pretty widespread.

I'm not saying you are incorrect, but on what basis can we make that claim (it being widespread)?

EDIT: I'd like to think it isn't but having said that, one of my old school players is running a game which is heavy on the DM fiat. I'm a player in this game and have offered to trust his style completely, whatever happens happens - because what else am I gonna do. I want the table to have a good time. I've got boardgame nights for something more structured.

 

[pemerton]

The thing with the alarm spell example is it sounds like the gm isn’t being hugely impartial if he is allowing the assassin to take all those measures against it

This whole debate is why I try to come up with close order action drills for all the enemies ahead of time. I make the instructions appropriate to the intelligence and abilities of the monsters. This helps me to guard against any bias.

<snip>

In the case of an alarm spell, it is almost certain to work well enough against a pack of orcs or goblins at first level. If though, they are on the run from some enemy with a lot of magical power (and at higher levels this is a lot of them), then they should expect some challenge to their alarm.

I have quoted these two posts together, because I think that the second rebuts the first - in that it shows how/why the assassin who takes extensive measures to defeat the Alarm spell needn't be unfair at all - or at least, not in any straightforward way.

Well when it's made up, how and the reasons/criteria/principles matter.

To use my example from several posts back. If the GM creates a competent hunter at the start of the scenario. Then the hunter is tracking the players and the GM uses what they know about the hunter and how the alarm is positioned to make the call. That's very different from deciding they want to have a fight, so then they create someone who can bypasses the alarm.

One is taking the fiction into account to decide what happens, the other is deciding what they want to happen and then creating the fiction.

EDIT: The first is is why I roleplay, the second is destructive of the medium.

I think there are some potential challenges to fairness posed even in your first scenario, though. The GM uses what they know about the hunter to make the call - but does the hunter know exactly when the Alarm spell was cast? If they guess, based on their knowledge of the PCs' travel pattern and the time of sunset and so on, how accurate is their estimate? Do they correctly identify the warded 20' cube? Do they correctly intuit the caster's selection of ringing bell vs the mental ping - because in the former case, they are going to release their own silence effect to negate the ringing?

For me, the stuff above is not just theory-crafting. I posted the example in the OP because, a few days ago, I was reflecting on some GMing calls that I had to make decades ago when GMing Rolemaster. There were two PCs capable of casting a RM spell called Waiting Illusion - a triggered illusory effect - and they would often use the spell in a similar fashion to a D&D Alarm, to generate a bell or claxon sound if triggered; as well as the basic function of protecting against intruders, they would also use it eg if they had sneaked into a library, so that it would alert them if the librarian was coming into a nearby area.

And I would have to make decisions about whether particular NPCs or whatever would or wouldn't trigger the spell, based on my adjudication of the fiction, and in particular the fiction of the trigger vs the fiction of what the character in question would do. That can be hard - especially because very often there is no what the character would do but at best what the character might do.

One technique I would use was to resort to random rolls - say, assigning a percentage chance to a NPC doing this or that, and thereby triggering the spell or not. This is similar to what @Bill Zebub has said upthread about choosing combat actions, and to what @hawkeyefan has noted about the aliens in the Alien RPG. One way of looking at TB2e's framework, that Aetherial Premonition feeds into, is that it systematises this approach rather than requiring the GM to make the sort of ad hoc calls and rolls that RM required me to make, back in the day.

 

[AnotherGuy]

One technique I would use was to resort to random rolls - say, assigning a percentage chance to a NPC doing this or that, and thereby triggering the spell or not. This is similar to what @Bill Zebub has said upthread about choosing combat actions, and to what @hawkeyefan has noted about the aliens in the Alien RPG. One way of looking at TB2e's framework, that Aetherial Premonition feeds into, is that it systematises this approach rather than requiring the GM to make the sort of ad hoc calls and rolls that RM required me to make, back in the day.

Pemerton are you saying that at no time do you think that following the dice is not always the best idea or not best for the table?

 

[pemerton]

Regarding your edit, I don't know if I'd say the second is destructive of the medium... it seems pretty widespread.

I'm not saying you are incorrect, but on what basis can we make that claim (it being widespread)?

I'm tempted to respond - look at just about every GM advice thread ever?

It's very common to see advice that the GM should come up with behind-the-scenes, unrevealed plans about what will happen next, what the NPCs will do, etc.

It's also very common to see advice that the GM should make decisions that make the game fun, that encourage the players to stay focused on the plot/adventure, etc.

Either of these bits of advice is apt to push in the direction @hawkeyefan is pointing to, the second for obvious reasons and the first because the plans the GM comes up with for the NPCs will never be complete - how could they be? - and so the GM has to extrapolate from them in the moment. Put both bits of advice together, and the pushing becomes all the stronger.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think part of being a fair and impartial GM is giving the players plans a very fair hearing. If the Gm is putting out ones they consider more fun ahead of victories the players rightfully should have earned, they aren’t gaming fairly. This is less about rules and more about paying attention to what is happening in the setting and what actions the players are taking. Also while rules aren’t everything they are how the players often expect the world to operate so any change or rules adjustment really needs to be done variously IMO

I don't disagree with what you're saying here... but folks have said that the GM's job is to try and make the game fun... so if that's the goal they're working toward, is what they're doing unfair? That's really hard to judge at times. Sometimes, it may be easy, and we may be able to reach a reasonable level of consensus. But there will be times when that's not the case. Where multiple participants will have multiple differing ideas about how something should be handled.

In that sense, I think criticism of a system that allows this gray area to exist makes sense. And the more the gray area, the more the criticism applies.

I'm saying if the DM is deciding in the moment (as opposed to via prep prior to play) to disregard the player's prophylactic actions, they are being a jerk. Stuff like that should IMO be determined either as part of prep (so it's not directly responding to PC action) or determined via random roll (so the DM is not making a specific choice to screw them over and letting fate decide). The player, for their part, should IMO trust in that process, of which they should been aware since session 0.

See, I don't go as far as saying that when a DM does that, they are definitely being a jerk. It is certainly possible. They could be overly adversarial or what have you. But I also think they may do it out of some sense of providing a challenging or fun game.

And because it's absolutely within the rules of play for them to do so, why would they consider it problematic at all?

I'm not saying you are incorrect, but on what basis can we make that claim (it being widespread)?

EDIT: I'd like to think it isn't but having said that, one of my old school players is running a game which is heavy on the DM fiat. I'm a player in this game and have offered to trust his style completely, whatever happens happen - because what else am I gonna do. I want the table to have a good time. I've got boardgame nights for something more structured.

I mean, evidence of that is in this very thread to varying degrees. Go a little further, and you see it all over this site and similar ones. Look at the most prevalent style of play in the hobby... the adventure path.

I think it's pretty obvious that it's widespread.

 

[pemerton]

Pemerton are you saying that at no time do you think that following the dice is not always the best idea or not best for the table?

I think that, if following the rules of the game is not best, the game needs better rules!

Back when I was GMing RM, it was relatively hard to get RPGs with complete rules. Now it's easy, because RPG design has progressed a lot in the intervening decades.

When I'm GMing Torchbearer 2e, I follow the rules. These include instruction on when to make dice rolls, or when to call for dice rolls. And what to do in response to them. I inject my GM decision-making when the rules tell me to - most often this is when the players fail a dice roll (which happens quite often in TB2e, because of the relationship between typical dice pool sizes and typical difficulties - in this respect TB2e resembles its "parent' game Burning Wheel). There are other occasions too.

Here's a contrasting rule, in a different RPG: in Prince Valiant, the rate at which PCs recover from injuries is largely a matter of GM fiat. The rules spell this out explicitly. To me, this makes much more sense than (i) specifying recovery time on a per-day basis (as, say, AD&D does, either literally in the form of hp per day, or indirectly in the form of spells per day which then feeds into cure wound dice of recovery per day), and then (ii) making the passage of time, and the occurrence of interrupting events, something the GM is just entitled to decide. The latter approach also ultimately becomes GM fiat, but the fiat is obscured by, and laden with, all this stuff about recovery times and so on which create the superficial appearance of resources and trade-offs and the like.