GM fiat - an illustration

[thefutilist]

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.

Well this is personal preference and I'm speaking in broad strokes.


It's the most enjoyable way to make a statement about the human condition.


That being said, there are a whole load of ways to slice up the pie where system can interject, so I'm not saying all fiat all the time.
And I'm about to run The Pool and am in fact using a procedure close to the one you suggest.

Is this is a conflict or does the fictional positioning prevent it from being a conflict? Where fictional positioning includes how strongly I think the character feels about a thing.

In practice will become, if the fictional positioning allows for the conflict then I'm going to just allow the roll to decide.

So in this case at least, I'm not practising what I preach.

 

[Maxperson]

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

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

Maybe. Maybe not. Rolls are only called for when the outcome is in doubt.

then what awesomeness is happening that could not also happen by incorporating the dice?

All of it. Some random chance is good. Random chance for everything is bad. I can play a hero quest boardgame if I want that. RPGs should not be about randomly determining everything.

 

[bloodtide]

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.

This touches on the big unique point of D&D and one of the things that has kept it popular: Every single game run by a DM is unique to that DM. Each DM makes their own unique campaign, style, game play, house rules and everything else. For a lot of cases, each game is radically different from each other.

If the DM likes something they will put it into their game, if the DM does not like something it won't be in their game.

And when the DM has to create something, they can create whatever they want on a whim. Like the devil bargain:

The Easy Button DM would say "the devil rolls over at your feet as your the greatest characters ever and offers you all his knowledge for just a copper coin!"

The boring DM would say "The devil offers to sell you information stuff for 100 gold"

The gritty DM would say "the devil offers you a trade your soul for the information"

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?

The whole reason why DMs were invented is that they can do anything.

Dice, rolling on a table, can not. A table can only have so many listings. And even if they are vague like "a random surprise happens", well it will still be a random surprise. Again. Maybe a few DM can obfuscate what is rolled a bit, but really this is just how much you can fool, mislead or deceive the players. When you roll "character has a set back" and you struggle and say "oh..um...looks like your character forgot to tie their shoes so they fall down and go boom!" and the player might be amazed "wow, that has never happened to my character before ever!"

And sure a DM can always change, "re-interpret", "re-flavor", or even ignore a dice roll and a table.

 

[Bagpuss]

As a member of the other side, I can show this.

In Touchbearer nearly everything that happens is framed or controlled by the rules. So the GM, exactly like a player in any game, just does what the rules tell the GM to do. The GM can't really just do "anything". If the rules tell the GM that they can make a "tough encounter", then the GM is free to make that encounter under all the framed strict encounter rules. And the rules are written, and interpenetrated so the GM has very little freedom, in a general sense.

What's the point of the GM then? Couldn't you all just be players and let the rules handle the GM side?

D&D has very little rules outside of combat adventure rules. A DM can do whatever they want or wish on a whim.

But so can the players, because the DM has the flexibility to adjudicate things on the fly that aren't coded into the rules.

So for TB(generically as I don't know the game rules), it is just following a chain of rules for Camp->Alarm spell->camp actions->camp events->encounter. All by dice rolls. Both the GM and players can be on the same page of the rules and know what will happen. The rules and dice rolls will tell the GM "a bad event happens", and the GM is free to make any 'bad event' they want, under the strict rules of 'a bad event'.

If they are under strict rules then they aren't free to make it whatever they want. And if there are rules for the "a bad event" why bother with the GM at all?

For D&D: The DM just does whatever they want on a whim.

And again so can the players because not everything has to be in the rules.

And for many the direct above is a problem. The DM can "just say" anything happens. There is no real limit as to what the DM can "just say" happens. Maybe a some DMs care about "fair play" or "balance" or something like that: but they don't have too...

Because sometimes unbalanced things can be a lot of fun, and because there aren't strict you can have surprises and real drama.

To the TB player, they would say they can't play a game where they have to follow the rules vs a GM that can just 'do anything' on a whim.

 

[bloodtide]

What's the point of the GM then? Couldn't you all just be players and let the rules handle the GM side?

YES! This is the whole point. The Player, with the nickname "GM", just does what the rules tell them to do.

But so can the players, because the DM has the flexibility to adjudicate things on the fly that aren't coded into the rules.

Yes players can attempt to do anything under the full control of the DM.

If they are under strict rules then they aren't free to make it whatever they want. And if there are rules for the "a bad event" why bother with the GM at all?

Well, the player-gm is a bit of a old legacy thing. The next step is a pure one person game....like the AI ones.

And again so can the players because not everything has to be in the rules.

And, again, the players must do so under the DM.

Because sometimes unbalanced things can be a lot of fun, and because there aren't strict you can have surprises and real drama.

Some people don't think unbalanced things are fun. They want safe balance predictable game.

Like some people go to the park and walk along the path and say 'wow'. Others leave the path and head off in to the wilderness on a wing and a prayer to experience whatever they might find.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Why the hostility? You have advocated for Rule Zero often and proudly.

Maybe. Maybe not. Rolls are only called for when the outcome is in doubt.

No. in the example I was responding to from @thefutilist , the outcome was uncertain and the GM simply decided the outcome.

That was how the GM decided in that example. So you insisting otherwise is ignoring a key element of that exchange.

Now, in your awesome example… what happened? Were dice used or not?

All of it. Some random chance is good. Random chance for everything is bad. I can play a hero quest boardgame if I want that. RPGs should not be about randomly determining everything.

Who said anything about random chance for everything? I was talking about a specific example where an uncertain outcome was resolved by GM fiat, and the reasoning offered was that it was a creative expression of the GM.

The scenario you’ve described with the devil and the character offering his soul… if the devil’s decision is determined by GM fiat or by dice roll… how does fiat offer more opportunity for creativity?

I don’t see that it does. I was asking @thefutilist to share his thoughts about it to try and better understand his point. You then responded and started arguing with me while ignoring the context of the initial exchange.

So I’ve now (hopefully) clearly explained the context. Feel free to respond within that context.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well this is personal preference and I'm speaking in broad strokes.

Totally understood.

It's the most enjoyable way to make a statement about the human condition.

Okay, this seems to me to be the crux of your point. I want to make sure I understand. Are you saying that this opportunity… the assassin and the lover… is enhanced because it’s the GM deciding how it goes, and that decision says something poetic/artistic about the human condition?

Do you think that such an opportunity is lost if dice are involved?

Essentially I think my question boils down to “does the artistic expression have to match what the GM thinks is ‘correct’”?

 

[hawkeyefan]

The whole reason why DMs were invented is that they can do anything.

Dice, rolling on a table, can not. A table can only have so many listings. And even if they are vague like "a random surprise happens", well it will still be a random surprise. Again. Maybe a few DM can obfuscate what is rolled a bit, but really this is just how much you can fool, mislead or deceive the players. When you roll "character has a set back" and you struggle and say "oh..um...looks like your character forgot to tie their shoes so they fall down and go boom!" and the player might be amazed "wow, that has never happened to my character before ever!"

And sure a DM can always change, "re-interpret", "re-flavor", or even ignore a dice roll and a table.

Perhaps in your game. When I run RPGs, even including one as GM led as D&D 5e, I don’t alter or reinterpret rules on a whim.

What purpose do dice serve in your game?

 

[soviet]

Perhaps in your game. When I run RPGs, even including one as GM led as D&D 5e, I don’t alter or reinterpret rules on a whim.

What purpose do dice serve in your game?

Background noise!

 

[thefutilist]

Totally understood.



Okay, this seems to me to be the crux of your point. I want to make sure I understand. Are you saying that this opportunity… the assassin and the lover… is enhanced because it’s the GM deciding how it goes, and that decision says something poetic/artistic about the human condition?

Do you think that such an opportunity is lost if dice are involved?

Essentially I think my question boils down to “does the artistic expression have to match what the GM thinks is ‘correct’”?

Direct fiat is a more raw form of expression whilst fortune offers curveballs. Yes I think the opportunity is lost if dice are involved but that doesn't mean there aren't other avenues for expression. Although I'm not sure I'd phrase it as opportunity because that suggests I'd change all systems so they work the same way, which I wouldn't.

To answer your question more directly

The fact the GM (or player) is deciding what is correct IS the form of artistic expression. They've been given authority over this bit of the fiction so what they say is correct, is correct.