GM fiat - an illustration

[hawkeyefan]

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.

Well, considering in the past you’ve supported DMs making whatever rules they want and changing the game to suit their style, I hope you can see why I mentioned Rule Zero.

DMs don’t always do things by the book, right?

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.

Yes, of course… but given how confused this discussion has become, I wanted to keep it simple. I also wanted to try and stick to the core rules of D&D. Yes there’s mention of partial success in the DMG, as you point out, but it’s not typically used from what I’ve seen in these discussions.

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.

Yes. I’ve not said otherwise.

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.

Like I said, that’s not something that most D&D folks seem aware of or interested in. Partial success as a concept is much more present in RPGs other than D&D, though… so we can still hope that many folks will be exposed to the concept.

 

[Maxperson]

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

13 year old me totally had all of that stuff!

 

[Maxperson]

Well, considering in the past you’ve supported DMs making whatever rules they want and changing the game to suit their style, I hope you can see why I mentioned Rule Zero.

That's not entirely accurate. In the past I've said that they have that authority. They do, because the game gives it to them. I've also said that if they abuse that authority than should, and usually do lose their players.

Yes the DM should make the game theirs(suit their playstyle), but they should also be getting players who enjoy the same playstyle. And should be using that authority very carefully to make sure they aren't ruining anyone's fun. The game is to be enjoyed, not used as a cudgel on players.

Yes, of course… but given how confused this discussion has become, I wanted to keep it simple. I also wanted to try and stick to the core rules of D&D. Yes there’s mention of partial success in the DMG, as you point out, but it’s not typically used from what I’ve seen in these discussions.

Like I said, that’s not something that most D&D folks seem aware of or interested in. Partial success as a concept is much more present in RPGs other than D&D, though… so we can still hope that many folks will be exposed to the concept.

5e brought that out in the DMG, though, and in my opinion it's a very good addition to the game. If they removed it from 5.5e it will be a shame, and a mistake.

Edit: You wanted to keep it simple, but if we are not using dice to resolve the situation, those things are all on the table. Fiat is not limited like dice rolling is. That's another reason DM fiat is better at time for resolving situations.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Woah, we're not interchangeable. I think games can and should specify all possible points of interaction while still using task resolution; plans are built out of stacking actions drawn from a set of pre-knowable mechanics. My sense of Micah is that they're more amenable to GM designed resolutions moment to moment.

I am specifically opposed to negotiation as a standard part of the gameplay loop. I never want to sell anyone on whether or not a proposed action should work nor do I want to discuss the scope of an action's effectiveness.

I personally would respond that I see far less difference between yours and @Micah Sweet s resolution techniques. By the time you filter down from general rules to the specific fiction, and thus application of those rules, so many judgement calls and extrapolations are required that nothing really objective is left. I mean, IME, people may often have a general agreement that something is hard, that your enemies are likely to have a plan for that, etc. It's not all pea soup, but many possibilities exist which are all plausible. More often than not various factors come into play, like which of this plethora of possible framings feels conducive to enjoyment or other agenda elements, player or GM.

 

[bloodtide]

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.

This is a big fundamental difference between the two philosophies.

Well, feel free to correct this:

You see an NPC as just a "random game item", much like a token in a boardgame, for example. The "random game item" does not need a name or history or really any detail: you can give it some sure, but it is all pure meaningless fluff. The only things that matter are the dice, rules and the player happiness. So when it comes down to "what will the random game item token do", to you it is just a matter of a roll to follow the rules. You roll, consult the rules as what to do based on the roll, and then do what the rules tell you to do.

So, here on the other side, we are doing a reality simulation. An NPC is a full character with a name, history, personality, hopes, dreams and a full write up. Such a DM would know the NPC well enough to role play their character and know what the NPC would think and say and do. The DM here role plays the character AS the character, not as a "pawn on the DMs story that always goes against the players, snicker snicker". This DM wants a massive simulated game world that makes sense in the game reality. The DM might use some dice and rules some times for somethings, but keeps full control of the simulated game reality always.

Yes the DM should make the game theirs(suit their playstyle), but they should also be getting players who enjoy the same playstyle. And should be using that authority very carefully to make sure they aren't ruining anyone's fun. The game is to be enjoyed, not used as a cudgel on players.

I'm sure a "cudgel" DM to most. Though, at least 75% of players do it to themselves. I describe a tower floating over a lake of acid and the player just jokes a "whatever dm". Then a couple minutes later a harpy knocks their character into the lake.....of acid. The player will then whine and complain and cry up until their character dies.

And such a player just gets confused when a good player does something like tie their character to the tower with a rope...or even stick themselves to a harpy with glue.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I call the world Earth.

They are just people: fallible humans. What they write is nice, and I might like some of it. But I feel not even the slightest urge to follow everything they print in a book.

Well, in a general sense, I don't care what anyone thinks. It is a generally good way to live life.

Well, I disagree with a lot of people. I'm not the type that follows "fads" or "trends" or "what is popular". And I sure don't look at a whole group of people who all think only one thing and have a desire to join them and become "one of them".

The above is very possible, as I do it. And so do a lot of other DMs.

One type of DM won't, or can't put much effort into the game beyond just playing it. Much like say a board game. This type of DM, the player DM, wants to be just like the typical player. And that is putting very little effort, often none, into the game. Even more so outside of the game play. The casual player and player-DM just wants to show up, play the game for a couple hours and have a fun time. This DM does not make up much.

The other type of DM puts a lot of effort into the game. Often many, many, many hours per week every week. Nothing like any other type of game. This type of DM is far beyond and apart of the typical player. While the typical player just makes a character and shows up to the game ready to play, this DM does tons and tons of work outside the game. This DM makes up tons and tons and tons of content.

And the big difference too is one DM does nothing and the other writes an adventure.

Yeah, overly reductionist division of all the rich interplay of techniques and structures of play into a binary choice which elides pretty much any meaning. Even there we're left to wonder why one of your options is superior to the other in any way beyond your obvious contempt for one of them.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well the big difference is that if the GM has a plot planned out then he's not really reincorporating what the player says. He's not taking it into consideration because he already knows the outcome. If the GM doesn't have a plot planned out, then he is listening to what the players are saying and taking it into consideration.

But if the GM is not presenting some overall direction, and yet all factors must be determined by said GM then either the evaluation of situation is very thin or the pace must be quite slow...

 

[pemerton]

This is a big fundamental difference between the two philosophies.

Well, feel free to correct this:

You see an NPC as just a "random game item", much like a token in a boardgame, for example. The "random game item" does not need a name or history or really any detail: you can give it some sure, but it is all pure meaningless fluff. The only things that matter are the dice, rules and the player happiness. So when it comes down to "what will the random game item token do", to you it is just a matter of a roll to follow the rules. You roll, consult the rules as what to do based on the roll, and then do what the rules tell you to do.

So, here on the other side, we are doing a reality simulation. An NPC is a full character with a name, history, personality, hopes, dreams and a full write up. Such a DM would know the NPC well enough to role play their character and know what the NPC would think and say and do. The DM here role plays the character AS the character, not as a "pawn on the DMs story that always goes against the players, snicker snicker". This DM wants a massive simulated game world that makes sense in the game reality. The DM might use some dice and rules some times for somethings, but keeps full control of the simulated game reality always.


I'm sure a "cudgel" DM to most. Though, at least 75% of players do it to themselves. I describe a tower floating over a lake of acid and the player just jokes a "whatever dm". Then a couple minutes later a harpy knocks their character into the lake.....of acid. The player will then whine and complain and cry up until their character dies.

And such a player just gets confused when a good player does something like tie their character to the tower with a rope...or even stick themselves to a harpy with glue.

One interesting thing about this post is that the first bit, about NPCs and game tokens and so on, appears to be a claim for the richness and sophistication of the fiction in the game.

But then the second bit, about the acid lake and so on, seems to describe a completely conventional dungeon-crawl type scenario with very little richness at all.

 

[Pedantic]

I personally would respond that I see far less difference between yours and @Micah Sweet s resolution techniques. By the time you filter down from general rules to the specific fiction, and thus application of those rules, so many judgement calls and extrapolations are required that nothing really objective is left. I mean, IME, people may often have a general agreement that something is hard, that your enemies are likely to have a plan for that, etc. It's not all pea soup, but many possibilities exist which are all plausible. More often than not various factors come into play, like which of this plethora of possible framings feels conducive to enjoyment or other agenda elements, player or GM.

I'm well aware, and find your take reductive, self-serving and unhelpful. That you can't differentiate which of two designs might serve me better says more about the limitations of your framework for evaluating them, or more charitably, that your goals for play are too narrow. You'll simply have to take it on faith that it's possible for someone more interested than yourself to differentiate gameplay that strives for objectivity to varying degrees, and to be better served by one design or another to that end.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I guess by whatever you count as better?

Having the right system is a big deal.

Like nearly anything, lots of preparation is always better then little or none. Though it does depend on the outcome you are looking for from the game. And if you keep the game very simple you don't need much prep.


I'd point out the big difference is that the DM does not make the decision.

Well, the problem here is the idea that anything a PC does or says automatically alters game reality. This would not be true in any classic traditional game. It makes for a poor game if everything in the game reality just alters at the players whim.

Toon is the only RPG I know of where this is true. Dungeon World, for example, is a game where the judgement of fiction on action is all in terms of the direction of the story, in favor of the character, mixed, or against. The GM also normally decides what specific move is entailed in a given action declaration, though they are constrained by the game's agenda and principles, as well as potentially the players disagreement.

Yet the GM and players are no more constrained overall, and it's not possible for a player to simply invent some arbitrary fiction, certainly not as a problem solving technique. In any case, it's not going to help them much anyhow, they're always going to be called on by the GM to take action, etc