GM fiat - an illustration

[hawkeyefan]

Though note it is a Limit.

In my game, as DM I can do whatever I wish on a whim with absolute power.

So what? What does this say about your game?

It doesn't actually matter what the book says. The GM can still do whatever he wants. Certainly, he may find himself without players and/or with additional black eyes, I'm not disputing that. But he still has the capability.

Okay… so can the players.

 

[Joanna Geist]

Indeed, they can. Which is why the idea of fair play is required for the game to function. Like I said.

 

[bloodtide]

So what? What does this say about your game?

What I just said.

And add, the rules are something there for when your imagination fails.

Where there are only rules, zero improv, zero discussion, zero wiggle-room--is bad. Board games get away with it because their play-space is severely limited. TTRPGs embrace far too large a spectrum to do that.

 

[hawkeyefan]

What I just said.

And add, the rules are something there for when your imagination fails.

Where there are only rules, zero improv, zero discussion, zero wiggle-room--is bad. Board games get away with it because their play-space is severely limited. TTRPGs embrace far too large a spectrum to do that.

Why? Why does unlimited authority improve your game?

You make comments about why you think games that limit the GM’s authority suffer in some way… but your comments also show that you have at best a rudimentary understanding of such games.

It’d be awesome if any of your examples didn’t include absurdities like the players taunting the GM.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Indeed, they can. Which is why the idea of fair play is required for the game to function. Like I said.

Sure, the rest of your initial post was fine. I was just pointing out that for some RPGs, the GM saying “a mountain falls on you” is unfair.

 

[Manbearcat]

It doesn't actually matter what the book says. The GM can still do whatever he wants. Certainly, he may find himself without players and/or with additional black eyes, I'm not disputing that. But he still has the capability.

EDIT - Yikes. I was just made aware that this is your first series of posts. My apologies for the rather blunt engagement below! You should get at least 10 posts before someone aggressively interrogates your position on something!

---

I don't quite understand what utility these sorts of statements are supposed to have.

A book of rules says "don't do this thing...it is expressly a violation of the intent, structure, and spirit of this game...violating it is going to lead to game gone bad...while not violating it and playing in a principled fashion will eventually (through repetition and acquired skill; "perfect practice makes perfect") lead to game gone good."

It seems to me that saying "the GM can still do whatever they want...<insert statement about consequences here>" is similar to saying "I can still jump off a five story building and flap my arms vigorously...it just won't lead to flying...it'll lead to splatting." Or "an NFL defensive back can visibly hold a receiver on 3rd and 10 to prevent them from getting open and possibly converting a 1st down...it'll just lead to an automatic first down by penalty and cripple their team."

What sort of useful work are you imagining the above quote is doing? Genuinely curious.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

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 though, a game like Dungeon World handles this without the character of fiat. The player describes the action, the GM's job is just to decide what move is triggered. Technically they could say 'none' and try to move on to the fight they imagined, but this is so explicitly a betrayal of the agenda, principles, and techniques the game describes that it would be hard to characterize as legitimate GMing.

I'd expect a move involving a roll of the dice would happen and the outcome of that, combined with other details, would suggest following fiction. General mechanics that handle any sort of situation that is not just cut and dried.

 

[thefutilist]

Good stuff

You can go as douchy as you want, I won't take offensive. It can be easier to communicate that way because you don't have to spend huge chunks of time trying to figure out ways to couch stuff and it makes communication more legible.

I always feel a bit bad responding as well because you put a great deal of effort in and then I respond with a small paragraph, sometimes because we've diverged early. So be aware that I'm taking what you say seriously even if my replies are often brief.

I don't really want to defend gamist play-styles because I don't play in a gamist way. I lack the direct experience, and passion, to lay out an in-depth case. So consider this my final thesis, based on reading about and talking with people in that community.


In competitive games, including solo games like crosswords, you're testing a specific skill or variety of skills. In the case of a crossword someone has constructed a puzzle but it's not enough that it just be hard A good crossword, even at the highest level, has to reveal itself as hard and fair. Such that if you fail and someone explains why you failed, you can slap your forehead 'doh, of course.'


There are people that consider some games more pure than others. So chess is more pure than poker because it doesn't have random elements. I'm not one of those people. Good competitive games can include randomness for a variety of reasons. The important thing is that skill will eventually reveal itself because there is still skill involved. But too much randomness can destroy the ability show skill.


I don't hold to the idea that roleplay is a form of simulation and so I agree with your dismissal of the unicorn. Or it is a form of simulation but more doesn't mean better. The Star Trek holodeck is not necessarily better than an osr game because it simulates more fully.


The best analogue I can come up with when describing pure fiat based resolution is figure skating. Competitive figure skating does exist. It does show skill. It does depend on impressing the judges and part of the skill of winning is knowing how to do that. Challenge based fiatists I've spoken to have been open about that. That knowing the DM and how they work is something you can use to your advantage. Unless you're aiming for some kind of holodeck sim, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact it is a good thing because part of the reward for role-playing is social and this includes esteem. You want your friend to judge you.


So in conclusion. The type of play I'm talking about is some mix of a crossword puzzle and figure skating.


Do I think that's the 'best' type of gamism? Hard to say because I don't play in that style. In a kind of value conceptual sense it appeals to me the most in it's use of the form.


As regards Narrativism you'd have to lay out your case in a bit more depth for me to respond. Given I see group consensus as the death of play but unilateral fiat as its beating heart I suspect we're on totally different pages.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Though note it is a Limit.

In my game, as DM I can do whatever I wish on a whim with absolute power.

In the Limited game, often enough, a DM-Player will just sit there and say something like "I can't take any actions in the game as the rules on page 11 say I can't!".

And sure, lots of players love this. They can dance around the table and say "nah nah, the player-dm can't touch us!". I'm sure this makes for a great, fun game for the players.

Yeah, games like Dungeon World, or Blades in the Dark, or Dogs in the Vineyard, don't work like this at all. The players may well be exercising skill in terms of managing the system, but all they care about in fiction terms related to that would involve what resources the fictional position lets them engage. My BitD character was stupid good at melee combat and feats of prowess, so of course he's going for the blades ASAP. The GM never had any problems interjecting some situation where stealth was required. He'd just have to make do. I would naturally choose to avoid those situations, but they are often present.

But in general all these games share some core things, which is that it's irrelevant if you get out of one or another situation. There's always another. These are pretty easily constructed, beating one is fun, perhaps, but playing them is the point. It's a very different mentality than what you're espousing. You cannot analyze it in terms of trad play values (though you can certainly compare the two).

 

[Campbell]

It doesn't actually matter what the book says. The GM can still do whatever he wants. Certainly, he may find himself without players and/or with additional black eyes, I'm not disputing that. But he still has the capability.

In the sense that no game rules (or any rules really) are binding on any given person sure. But there is nothing inherent in being the GM that grants authority not granted by the game.