GM fiat - an illustration

[bloodtide]

If you don’t care what the players think, then how are you even able to know what is more fun for them? It doesn’t make any sense.

Your crossing the streams here. You don't have to care about someone to know what is more fun for them.

As for changing things to be more fun… I don’t really know what you mean. Of course fun is a goal. But do I alter dice rolls? Do I change rules in the middle of play, or similar? No, I definitely don’t.

Yes, both of those and more.

Do you know why? Because when that happens to me as a player, it actually makes the game less fun.

If that is how you think and feel, it's fine for you.

So if someone does that and claims to be doing so to make the game more fun for me, they’re full of it… probably because they don’t actually care what I or anyone else thinks and instead only do what they enjoy! Because… wait for it… they think they know better than everyone else!

This would be true in many cases.

So you will at times roll the dice and then ignore the results?

I call this time "most of the time".

There is a fun twist here though: I do love random rolls/random tables that Utterly Disrupt the Game. I'd guess you don't. To explain, for example: in a dungeon a typical found treasure chest will contain, 1d6:

1.Nothing. Yes, nothing. No reward at all.
2. Simple common items. "you find four left boots and an empty waterskin "
3. A trap/monster/harmful encounter
4. Whatever the 'rules' say should be the standard
5. Something around a minimum of five times what the rules say should be here
6. An item of priceless value or power or such

Now it is fun for me, and many players, to roll on such a table randomly. There is a fun thrill knowing then might roll a 5 or 6 and get a ton of money or a powerful magic item. For every chest they open. Of course, they might also find nothing or a trap/monster. For every chest.

When the PCs randomly find say, The Rod of Dragon Control (from the old D&D movie), it can be fun to watch the game unfold from there.

My question was how Resolution Method 1 resulted in an act of creativity by the GM that Resolution Method 2 somehow lacked. Because from what I can see, they both involve the same amount of creativity. The only difference is the means of the decision made.

Method 2 involves very little creativity. As you know the outcome, all you need do is lazily connect the dots to make it sound good. Really this is a HUGE problem in most fiction. A great writer can make this work...maybe....but everyone else you get an awkward, nonsensical, irrational, mess that "somehow" gets to the end outcome.

Method 1 is all the creativity. Sure a bad DM can just "say what happens", but a good or great DM will formulate out the novel. Fully make the characters and setting and story and everything else. And using their vast understanding of human nature, reality, history and common sense make, build and tell a great story. And this is as hard as it sounds.

 

[thefutilist]

Resolution Method 2- dice are used to determine how the NPC reacts.
Result 2A- she does not forgive him. The GM considers the same factors as above and explains the NPC’s decision.
Result 2B- she does forgive him. The GM considers all the relevant factors and then explains why the NPC forgives the assassin.

My question to @thefutilist was how Resolution Method 1 resulted in an act of creativity by the GM that Resolution Method 2 somehow lacked. Because from what I can see, they both involve the same amount of creativity. The only difference is the means of the decision made.

Ah wait there might be some confusion. So if I'm using dice. Whether the girlfriend forgives him would probably never actually be a conflict, me and my friends might screw up if we're not on the ball but it's probably illegitimate. The phrase 'do you forgive me would probably be said after a conflict because we can't know what the state of the situation is until the conflict has happened. Note that he does ask his girlfriend a question but the conflict doesn't directly resolve that.


Extended examples of me using dice. Note that we never explicitly say what the girl friends action will be. We're resolving the immediate effects of the hitmans words.


GM; You're in her apartment late at night and she's been crying.

Player: She's sitting on the couch and I'm standing up, keeping my distance, maybe pacing a little bit 'I know what you must be thinking. What you've got to understand is that after I left the army I didn't now what to do. I just kind of fell into this.

GM; 'You just fell into killing people?'

Player: 'Well since meting you I've been. More alive I guess. I'm rethinking things, I'm not saying I'm right....so are finished?'

GM: I mean that's a conflict right

Player: Whether she gets where I'm coming from?

GM: Yeah. Like her disgust for the moral nature of your actions but she loves you and she's got her own history.

Player: So I'm rolling 3d10

GM: She's rolling 4d10

They roll

GM: So you win. She gets up off the couch, walks over and embraces you.

Player: i hold her tight

GM: Scene. Turns to the next player. So Bill, you're hanging upside down from a meat hook while the butcher sharpens his blades.


This is more or less how it went down. The particular thing the player says, the sentence beginning with 'well since..' Is the trigger for the conflict. As the person controlling her character, I technically get last say as to whether it is or isn't, does she feel so strongly that in no way is it a conflict.

Let me give a version from Sorcerer, which is different to the resolution system I was using but only marginally.


GM: I mean that's a conflict right

Player: Whether she gets where I'm coming from?

GM: Yeah. Humanity versus humanity.

They roll and the player wins

GM: She stands up and walks behind the couch. 'I need more time to process.'

Player: What's their to think about?

GM: Seems like another conflict. I'm guessing will V hmm will this time

Player: Yeah

They roll. Player wins

GM; Ok. she looks up at you kind of unsure.

Player: I walk over to her and hold her

GM; She holds you back but it's a bit weak

GM: Scene. So Bill, you're being fed into a meat processor while the butcher watches laughing.


I don't know if that clears things up or just makes things more confusing.

 

[Maxperson]

So again… in the example the DM decided by fiat how the assassin’s former lover reacted to the assassin’s request to take him back. So my comments were about a situation where the DM in a D&D game had a situation that was uncertain and decided the outcome by fiat.

I don't understand how that can happen. If the outcome is uncertain, the DM shouldn't be deciding it certainly. That's a contradiction.

The assassin has asked his lover to forgive him. He pleads his case to her. She can choose to forgive him or not.

It's not a dichotomy. She can also put it off altogether and tell him he needs to prove himself to be changed(or fail to) before she will make a decision. Or other possibilities.

Resolution Method 1- the DM decides she does not forgive him. The DM considers all the factors that have been established in play, the history between the PC and NPC, the NPC’s current outlook, and any other relevant factors. He then renders his decision.

Resolution Method 2- dice are used to determine how the NPC reacts.
Result 2A- she does not forgive him. The GM considers the same factors as above and explains the NPC’s decision.
Result 2B- she does forgive him. The GM considers all the relevant factors and then explains why the NPC forgives the assassin.

My question to @thefutilist was how Resolution Method 1 resulted in an act of creativity by the GM that Resolution Method 2 somehow lacked. Because from what I can see, they both involve the same amount of creativity. The only difference is the means of the decision made.

If the outcome is certain, and the DM can decide that she would certainly forgive, not forgive, or a number of other scenarios like the one I put forth above. Fiat allows that.

If the outcome is uncertain, it should go to die rolls. Die rolls, though, only govern success or failure in 5e. They don't allow for partial successes, partial failures, or situations like I describe above. At least not unless you engage the optional rule in the 5e DMG. It's a pity that they got rid of that optional rule in the 5.5e DMG. New DMs won't know about it unless it's listed as an option in the 5.5e PHB.

 

[Theory of Games]

Your crossing the streams here. You don't have to care about someone to know what is more fun for them.

Yes, both of those and more.

If that is how you think and feel, it's fine for you.

This would be true in many cases.

I call this time "most of the time".

There is a fun twist here though: I do love random rolls/random tables that Utterly Disrupt the Game. I'd guess you don't. To explain, for example: in a dungeon a typical found treasure chest will contain, 1d6:

1.Nothing. Yes, nothing. No reward at all.
2. Simple common items. "you find four left boots and an empty waterskin "
3. A trap/monster/harmful encounter
4. Whatever the 'rules' say should be the standard
5. Something around a minimum of five times what the rules say should be here
6. An item of priceless value or power or such

Now it is fun for me, and many players, to roll on such a table randomly. There is a fun thrill knowing then might roll a 5 or 6 and get a ton of money or a powerful magic item. For every chest they open. Of course, they might also find nothing or a trap/monster. For every chest.

When the PCs randomly find say, The Rod of Dragon Control (from the old D&D movie), it can be fun to watch the game unfold from there.



Method 2 involves very little creativity. As you know the outcome, all you need do is lazily connect the dots to make it sound good. Really this is a HUGE problem in most fiction. A great writer can make this work...maybe....but everyone else you get an awkward, nonsensical, irrational, mess that "somehow" gets to the end outcome.

Method 1 is all the creativity. Sure a bad DM can just "say what happens", but a good or great DM will formulate out the novel. Fully make the characters and setting and story and everything else. And using their vast understanding of human nature, reality, history and common sense make, build and tell a great story. And this is as hard as it sounds.

 

[Maxperson]

Re that last thing: not only does the Bastion of Broken Souls do this (it's an early-ish 3E D&D module), but the back-up villains are called "The Second String"!

I quoted one example in my post upthread.

I saw the post about Traveler, and the one I quoted you in right before this one. I didn't see the example you posted if it wasn't in those two posts.

Re @hawkeyefan's talk about 5e linearity, I have some of those and yes, they are very linear. However, I don't agree that you can't have a large influence on how things turn out. It just needs the players to be creative in their solutions and not just meekly follow the breadcrumbs. If they follow the breadcrumbs, they will just end up solving things in one of the ways the adventure predicts.

Another thing about the 5e adventures, is that you can just walk out of them and leave. Since you can have a large impact if you are a group of proactive players, and since you can just leave the adventure, they are not an instance of DM storytelling. DM storytelling would be a railroad.

 

[pemerton]

I saw the post about Traveler, and the one I quoted you in right before this one. I didn't see the example you posted if it wasn't in those two posts.

Here is the post:

Here's an illustration of the approach (just one of many that could be chosen), from the 3E module Expedition to the Demonweb Pits, p 98:

If attacked, the bone naga [Dawnat Sanp] defends himself . . . If after a single round of combat the characters cease their attack, Sanp might accept an apology . . . Either way, go to the E5: Chased Out of the City encounter description below. . . .

E5: Chased Out of the City Once the PCs have the information they need from the ambassador, they will be chased out of the city as spies. . . use the foolowing sequence of increasingly urgent prompts to flee the city. A large part of getting characters to flee is the DM's approach; make it clear to them that staying is suicide.​

Another thing about the 5e adventures, is that you can just walk out of them and leave. Since you can have a large impact if you are a group of proactive players, and since you can just leave the adventure, they are not an instance of DM storytelling. DM storytelling would be a railroad.

I don't know what "you can just walk out of them and leave" means. Players can always walk out and leave, whatever the GM is doing or saying.

But player characters, at least in very common approaches to D&D play, can only do things within the context of the GM's setting and framing and narration of consequences.

 

[Maxperson]

Here is the post:

Thanks. I don't know that it's necessarily railroading. Some place are suicidal to stay in and there should be telegraphing of that. Plus, they do have the option to stay. It's just suicide, presumably because of all the demons around.

I don't know what "you can just walk out of them and leave" means. Players can always walk out and leave, whatever the GM is doing or saying.

Characters, not players.

But player characters, at least in very common approaches to D&D play, can only do things within the context of the GM's setting and framing and narration of consequences.

And that includes telling the DM that all of these dragons are too much, we aren't going to go north to the keep. Instead we are striking out west, heading to Baldur's Gate to become mercenaries or have tadpoles stuck into our heads.

 

[thefutilist]

Resolution Method 2- dice are used to determine how the NPC reacts.
Result 2A- she does not forgive him. The GM considers the same factors as above and explains the NPC’s decision.
Result 2B- she does forgive him. The GM considers all the relevant factors and then explains why the NPC forgives the assassin.

Anyway I gave the previous example because there are methods where you establish facts after a roll (what I call generative resolution. I think me and @pemerton talked about it 5 or 6 months ago). It probably ended with me flaming out about it because I hate it so much. BUT it does actually fulfil the requirements I stated about expression, if you're creating facts in response to a roll then yeah you can directly say something about the human condition.


Here's a somewhat tortuous example:

Player: 'Well since meting you I've been. More alive I guess. I'm rethinking things, I'm not saying I'm right....so are finished?'

GM: I mean that's a conflict right Where she stays with him or not.

Player: yeah

They roll the dice

GM; Comes up with a fact that explains the decision. 'I've done things as well. Things I'm not proud of. Maybe we're right for each other.' she gets up off the couch and embraces the hitman.

So in response to the roll the GM creates backstory for the NPC.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Anyway I gave the previous example because there are methods where you establish facts after a roll (what I call generative resolution. I think me and @pemerton talked about it 5 or 6 months ago). It probably ended with me flaming out about it because I hate it so much. BUT it does actually fulfil the requirements I stated about expression, if you're creating facts in response to a roll then yeah you can directly say something about the human condition.


Here's a somewhat tortuous example:

Player: 'Well since meting you I've been. More alive I guess. I'm rethinking things, I'm not saying I'm right....so are finished?'

GM: I mean that's a conflict right Where she stays with him or not.

Player: yeah

They roll the dice

GM; Comes up with a fact that explains the decision. 'I've done things as well. Things I'm not proud of. Maybe we're right for each other.' she gets up off the couch and embraces the hitman.

So in response to the roll the GM creates backstory for the NPC.

I don’t think that it requires creation of facts or additional backstory. I think there are simply some choices where a person can go either way. Where people may do as we expect… or they may not.

Just because someone does something unexpected doesn’t require the GM to create new facts that support that. If the outcome is truly uncertain, then support for either result already exists.

Can they make up additional facts? Sure, possibly. But it’s not required.

This is why I really am not seeing the creativity angle you mentioned. You’ve since elaborated that the choice itself is a creative decision on the part of the GM… so I accept that even of I’m not sure I agree.

 

[hawkeyefan]

And using their vast understanding of human nature, reality, history and common sense

This is the most amazing thing I’ve ever read on these boards. Thank you for it.