GM fiat - an illustration

[pemerton]

I know many such games have a detailed setting built into the core rules as a core part of the game itself

And would you describe Torchbearer 2e in this way?

It goes back to the Alarm example, where it was said the DM "can't be expected" to know all about an assassin that might encounter the alarm cast by the PC. Well, in the classic tradational game, many DMs would know all about the assassin, right down to their personality in detail. Mostly because the DM wants to make it all up and is willing to devote considerable non-game time to doing so.

But that detail is just made up. It doesn't change it from being GM fiat.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Wait a moment let me back up. I'm trying to describe why not using dice is desirable but that's an aesthetic preference thing. Use dice, don't use dice. My broader point is that not using dice doesn't tell us anything about whether this is GM story time or not. Using dice in a consequential way is disruptive of the GM telling a story but so what. That only matters if the GM is working backwards to get to the outcomes he wants.

I was approaching this with the idea that some GMs want to he judged by the players based on their creativity. I just don’t see how that’s not something that could happen in either approach.

Or if you really wanted to frame it in terms of story control. Then yeah the GM has story control when they decide resolutions by fiat and the player has story control when they decide resolutions by fiat.

This is more what I meant. Story control. The GM certainly could be deciding things based on their predetermined ideas of how things should go… that they make decisions based on what’s most likely would seem to align with ideas that they’ve had about what will happen.

But it’s not case that it certainly must be so. They may just be deciding in the moment based on what they think makes the most sense.

Let's say the hitman example happens in apocalypse world. The hitman is pleading at the lover and the MC decides by fiat what the result of that is. The inverse would be true if the girlfriend was pleading at the hitman. The player gets to decide by fiat. That's just how that particular game works.

Well, in Apocalypse World I think the GM would only decide by fiat if the matter was certain, one way or the other. “Um, she knows you killed her parents, man… no way will she forgive you” or similar.

And as you say, different games work differently… I agree and that’s fine. But I think I’m struggling to see what the GM Fiat approach brings if it’s NOT about maintaining some story. The idea of the players appreciating the GM’s creativity is there, yes… but it would also be there in a resolution system like that in Apocalypse World.

 

[bloodtide]

And would you describe Torchbearer 2e in this way?

I'm not sure?

But that detail is just made up. It doesn't change it from being GM fiat.

True.

After all, a lot of players will make a big deal out of the "when".

If the DM makes an assassin six months ago with an anti alarm ring and many players are all "ok".

If the DM makes an assassin six minutes ago with an anti alarm ring and many players will complain.

 

[Theory of Games]

All games are about having fun. That's, like, the nature of any recreational activity.

No. Some games are about winning. There's no fun in bloodsport outside of defeating your opponent since you're literally getting your brains beat out hoping you reach "the bag". The crowd loves it because they aren't the ones getting bloodied.

 

[Maxperson]

Some avenues for GM fiat, though, tend to invite GM story time; or facilitate it.

Do you have examples of RPGs with language inviting the DM to engage in "story time" and then giving direction on how to engage in it via fiat? I can't think of any that I've seen, but I know you've seen more RPGs than I have.

In the ones I've played, the worst that can be said is that the avenues of DM fiat don't actively discourage or obstruct those DMs who are going to engage in "story time." That's not the same as inviting or facilitating.

 

[Maxperson]

But that detail is just made up. It doesn't change it from being GM fiat.

Maybe. Some details get rolled, but that's not the important part anyway. The important part is that those details were developed by the DM without knowing if the alarm spell would ever be used. That makes it very different from the DM deciding by fiat on the spot how an assassin might or might not be able to defeat the alarm spell.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, in Apocalypse World I think the GM would only decide by fiat if the matter was certain, one way or the other. “Um, she knows you killed her parents, man… no way will she forgive you” or similar.

That's how D&D works now as well. You only roll dice for ability checks(like persuasion) if the outcome is in doubt. If it's certain, the DM just says yes or no and play continues.

I agree and that’s fine. But I think I’m struggling to see what the GM Fiat approach brings if it’s NOT about maintaining some story. The idea of the players appreciating the GM’s creativity is there, yes… but it would also be there in a resolution system like that in Apocalypse World.

It brings awesomeness. As an example, the players are searching for the location of the MacGuffin and encounter a powerful devil. The DM expected it to be a fight, but instead one of the players decides to try and bargain with the devil, offering his soul in exchange for the location of the MacGuffin.

D&D has no rules for this, but it's well known in lore that devils and demons bargain for souls, offering power, information, wealth, etc. for those souls. The DM decides by fiat that such a bargain is possible in D&D and negotiations begin. Heck, the warlock class is based around these types of bargains.

Without DM fiat, the player gets turned down and a great opportunity for RP and a change in the direction of the story by the players is missed.

 

[hawkeyefan]

That's how D&D works now as well. You only roll dice for ability checks(like persuasion) if the outcome is in doubt. If it's certain, the DM just says yes or no and play continues.

Well, not necessarily. The example I was responding to was one where there were two potential outcomes, and the actual outcome was decided by GM Fiat.

And I’ve seen you advocate so many times about Rule Zero and the DM being able to decide what they want that seeing you try to act like there’s no difference between Apocalypse World and D&D 5e is pretty amazing.

It brings awesomeness. As an example, the players are searching for the location of the MacGuffin and encounter a powerful devil. The DM expected it to be a fight, but instead one of the players decides to try and bargain with the devil, offering his soul in exchange for the location of the MacGuffin.

D&D has no rules for this, but it's well known in lore that devils and demons bargain for souls, offering power, information, wealth, etc. for those souls. The DM decides by fiat that such a bargain is possible in D&D and negotiations begin. Heck, the warlock class is based around these types of bargains.

Without DM fiat, the player gets turned down and a great opportunity for RP and a change in the direction of the story by the players is missed.

Again, the context of my comments is important. I was responding to the idea of GM creativity expressed through GM fiat used to select how a situation is resolved.

To take your example of the devil… how does this display that? It doesn’t appear to. It doesn’t show a GM deciding by fiat from among a number of potential outcomes.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, not necessarily. The example I was responding to was one where there were two potential outcomes, and the actual outcome was decided by GM Fiat.

And I’ve seen you advocate so many times about Rule Zero and the DM being able to decide what they want that seeing you try to act like there’s no difference between Apocalypse World and D&D 5e is pretty amazing.

ROFL When did I ever do that? Jesus man. Can't you tell the difference between D&D and Apocalypse word using the same resolution for a persuasion check and there's not any difference between the two games?

It's really hard to take you seriously when you twist things to such a great and obviously ridiculous degree.

Again, the context of my comments is important. I was responding to the idea of GM creativity expressed through GM fiat used to select how a situation is resolved.

To take your example of the devil… how does this display that? It doesn’t appear to. It doesn’t show a GM deciding by fiat from among a number of potential outcomes.

Because it uses DM fiat to select how the situation is resolved. Players wants to bargain with a devil for information, offering up his soul. D&D has no such resolution ability. DM uses fiat to decide how to resolve it by saying yes the devil can do that. The DM could also have said no, implemented some sort of roll, or a number of other things. So yes, it was from a number of potential outcomes.

 

[hawkeyefan]

ROFL When did I ever do that? Jesus man. Can't you tell the difference between D&D and Apocalypse word using the same resolution for a persuasion check and there's not any difference between the two games?

It's really hard to take you seriously when you twist things to such a great and obviously ridiculous degree.

When have you advocated for rule zero? Is that what you’re asking?

There is a difference between AW and 5e, as the example I was responding to clearly shows.

Because it uses DM fiat to select how the situation is resolved. Players wants to bargain with a devil for information, offering up his soul. D&D has no such resolution ability. DM uses fiat to decide how to resolve it by saying yes the devil can do that. The DM could also have said no, implemented some sort of roll, or a number of other things. So yes, it was from a number of potential outcomes.

Okay.. when you said “and then negotiations begin” I was assuming some form of persuasion check or similar skill use was being used.

If not, and it was just the GM deciding what happens by fiat… then what awesomeness is happening that could not also happen by incorporating the dice?