GM fiat - an illustration

[Micah Sweet]

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.




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 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.

I consider it problematic if you don't treat the setting as logically and impartially as possible. You're not out to get the players, and you're not out to hold their hands (generally speaking). I believe the GMs job is to create an environment where the players can have fun, not to stake their reputation on whether or not they actually do. We don't have that power, so we shouldn't accept that responsibility.

 

[AnotherGuy]

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.

I see, so the argument you're making is your typically run AP by your average DM is likely to see stronger DM fiat that often circumvents the PC's actions in order to stay-on-course and encourage specific participation. Have I got that right?

 

[Emerikol]

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.

I think this is also very appropriate to maintaining fairness but I'd make the roll ahead of time when coming up with the plans if that were at all possible. My approach doesn't eliminate GM's having to make a decision for NPCs but it does help them to be fair.

As to your earlier comment, bad guys are not dumb. I don't play them dumb. They know about the world and if powerful they've dealt with wizards before (in a common place magic D&D style setting). Now I might not have them know what a 9th level spell would do but I absolutely would expect them to know that fireballs, magic missiles, and lightning bolts exist. They've been used in every major war in recent history. Right? They may not know the exact area, unless in that war, but they know stuff. Playing like NPCs are ignorant and dumb is not fair.

 

[pemerton]

I see, so the argument you're making is your typically run AP by your average DM is likely to see stronger DM fiat that often circumvents the PC's actions in order to stay-on-course and encourage specific participation. Have I got that right?

I think that @hawkeyefan is also generalising from his own experience of D&D play (see, eg, the notorious nerfing of the Folk Hero background feature). Generalising from one's own experience can of course be fraught, but I see a lot of evidence that hawkeyefan's experiences are not deviant ones.

 

[AnotherGuy]

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

Let me give you some examples of what I mean:

• For instance I like to rotate the type of attacks done by a beholder and use his whole gamut of eye stalks in the encounter - so if the die roll roll reflects sequential eye stalks from round to round, I may change this (DM fiat).
• I may roll on the trinket or magical item table and may not agree with the item found for the player. I may then ask the player to reroll (I let the players roll).
• I may roll on the random encounter table and it may not make sense or be too similar to something previously encountered. I may decide at that moment to use something that caught my eye (DM fiat) or decide to reroll.
• I will use DM fiat based on in-game knowledge to determine which PC will be attacked by which opponent, and ignore randomisation with dice.

 

[thefutilist]

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.

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.

It's a really good question and I like reading about different approaches.


If I'm playing Sorcerer I tend to go by the general rule that fictional positioning can't override the conflict resolution mechanics except in extremis. Is this actually a conflict or a lost cause. If it's any way a conflict I'd just use an opposed conflict roll.


I don't play challenge based stuff or a lot of stuff where the minutiae of tactical positioning matters. If I did then the situation you describe would be something I'd fret about. My thought process is:


You want good or bad placement of the alarm to actually matter because in some sense you're here to see smart play pay off or not. So that would initially lead me to adjudicate based on alarm positioning + npc capability. But that does have all the problems you mentioned which is why I would fret.


I don't know. If I played more challenge based type stuff I'd probably spend most of my life in a state of perpetual anxiety.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I consider it problematic if you don't treat the setting as logically and impartially as possible. You're not out to get the players, and you're not out to hold their hands (generally speaking). I believe the GMs job is to create an environment where the players can have fun, not to stake their reputation on whether or not they actually do. We don't have that power, so we should accept that responsibility.

But there's a huge gulf between being out to get the players and holding their hands.

Surely there are parts of the world that are actively out to get the characters, no? And they have resources at their disposal, no? And as GM, it would be trivially easy for you to rationalize whatever you wanted to have such an NPC do to get at the characters.

The GM's authority is so potentially broad that limiting it can help prevent some of these gray areas.

I see, so the argument you're making is your typically run AP by your average DM is likely to see stronger DM fiat that often circumvents the PC's actions in order to stay-on-course and encourage specific participation. Have I got that right?

That's certainly one element of it. But as @pemerton says, I'm also basing this on my reading of the 5e D&D books and my experiences as both a GM and player of 5e and other games. And I think there's also plenty of evidence to be found on these boards and others.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But there's a huge gulf between being out to get the players and holding their hands.

Surely there are parts of the world that are actively out to get the characters, no? And they have resources at their disposal, no? And as GM, it would be trivially easy for you to rationalize whatever you wanted to have such an NPC do to get at the characters.

The GM's authority is so potentially broad that limiting it can help prevent some of these gray areas.



That's certainly one element of it. But as @pemerton says, I'm also basing this on my reading of the 5e D&D books and my experiences as both a GM and player of 5e and other games. And I think there's also plenty of evidence to be found on these boards and others.

If the PCs go to a hostile area, they can...expect hostility? This seems pretty straightforward; the players choose what their PCs do, and the setting responds according to their actions and the nature of the setting. NPCs do the same thing.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

I think you are fascinating fun play but also fair play. Don't get me wrong, there are other approaches where fairness is less emphasized, and I am not saying those can't be entertaining. But if the subject is GM fairness, which I do think is important. I don't have an issue with the GM saying "This is what I think should happen". But if the players have taken all kinds of measures to prevent something from occurring, or if they have been pursuing a particular course of action and by all rights should be achieving the results they are looking for, the GM shouldn't say "nope this is going to be about the ninja attack I have been itching to throw at them, because that will be a 20 minute block of fun, and everything might fizzle if it doesn't happen".

If there is genuine disagreement, I tend to lean on going with what the GM says, unless he is being egregiously bad about it. But I also think there can be reasonable conversations during play (or after for that matter). I suppose the question is whether the is just a style conflict at the table or if the GM is making unfair calls

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Generally speaking, if I use the Alarm spell and the DM just bypasses it, I’m gonna find that pretty annoying. I’m probably not gonna flip the table and quit or anything, but I’d definitely cite it as cheesy.

I'd look at it this way: in a game where the general focus is on giving the players tools to depict a bunch of generally hardy, competent adventurers the purpose of the Alarm spell is to let the wizard exercise competence and forthought by casting it. Now, that is not to say it must be successful, maybe it isn't always, or maybe the characters should know that it won't help against the local land sharks.

In a test-of-skill kind of play, which I take it @bloodtide favors, the purpose is different. The wizard player is trying to skillfully employ their resource of spell slots to materially improve the chances of success. The spell, in a given fictional situation will preclude certain kinds of attacks, or mitigate them. Judging that is the skill.

Many kinds of misplay are possible in either case. Some seem to be pretty common, and I think the OP could be seen as a way to suss out some of them, and factors related to what produces them.