GM fiat - an illustration

[hawkeyefan]

The DM can use it in the resolution system. It's baked into the ability check system very clearly. You only roll if the outcome is in doubt. The DM decides if the outcome is in doubt, or if it automatically succeeds or automatically fails. The latter two options are DM fiat. The DM decides.

It can be used in other places as well. Once the players dropped a large avalanche of boulders onto a giant in a ravine. I could have asked for damage, but I decided that the giant couldn't survive it and just declared it dead.

I should have been more specific, I meant using it in resolution of the uncertain. When things are certain one way or the other, I think it’s usually obvious… so I don’t tend to think of this use of GM Fiat as all that powerful.

Your example with the giant is a better example of the kind of thing I was imagining. An argument could be made that the giant would survive, or that it could perish… so you bypassed the typical mechanics and declared it dead.

A perfectly valid use of GM Fiat, and nothing wrong with it at all. Also, nothing that couldn’t be resolved with a die roll.

DM fiat allows the DM to step beyond the game when the limitations are inappropriate or in the way of something much better that makes as much sense or more to happen. And it's required when the game is vague or doesn't address something, which 5e does three times a day and every other Tuesday.

My question is what do you mean by “much better”?

There is no single tool that is better for resolving things. There will often be a better tool for X or Y particular instances, but those tools are highly limited to whatever specific thing they address, so are not as good overall as DM fiat.

I’m not really convinced. There’s no reason you can’t use another method in those moments, nor do I see anything intrinsic about GM Fiat that makes it superior.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Because the ability to do anything is better then having limits on what you can do.

That’s a really broad statement. Would you say it applies to players, too?

I do often use the examples of others from such games too.

I would say, rather, that you try to caricature the examples of others so that they seem silly or flawed in some way… but usually, it just reveals how you misunderstand the example.

This is not exactly an absurdity...

Players saying “nyah nyah” to the GM is an absurdity.

 

[Maxperson]

I should have been more specific, I meant using it in resolution of the uncertain. When things are certain one way or the other, I think it’s usually obvious… so I don’t tend to think of this use of GM Fiat as all that powerful.

Your example with the giant is a better example of the kind of thing I was imagining. An argument could be made that the giant would survive, or that it could perish… so you bypassed the typical mechanics and declared it dead.

A perfectly valid use of GM Fiat, and nothing wrong with it at all. Also, nothing that couldn’t be resolved with a die roll.

Gotcha. I wasn't even considering that as an option.

I'd like to see where you think the game supports the DM deciding the uncertain via fiat. As I said upthread, I don't understand that since those are contradictory things. DM fiat is certainty and uncertainty is uncertainty.

I very rarely engage in fiat of the kind I described with the giant. It has to be something with a very clear outcome that would negate the need for dice completely. That avalanche wasn't survivable. A roll would have been a waste of time, and could very well have put me in the position of ignoring it if it indicated survival where there was no chance of surviving.

My question is what do you mean by “much better”?

Game enhancing. Now, obviously we all have different opinions about what enhances the game, but for me the ability to when it is reasonable, either ignore/change rules, or step outside the rules like the devil bargain upthread, adds tremendously to the game.

Rolling and the rules also add to the game and are very important, but they can't account for all situations, and the situations that they do cover, they don't always cover well. Circumstances matter a great deal and fiat often finds its way into those strange combinations that seem to happen fairly often.

I’m not really convinced. There’s no reason you can’t use another method in those moments, nor do I see anything intrinsic about GM Fiat that makes it superior.

I'm not saying you couldn't. I'm saying that those other methods are often not the best tool for the job.

 

[Maxperson]

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."

I don't think those are givens. I've been in some really horrific games that followed the rules by folks who supposedly knew what they were doing, and some really great ones where the DM/GM didn't follow the rules, because the DM/GM DID know what he was doing.

 

[aramis erak]

Fair enough. That's more than 40 years old, though. Is there anything from this millennium? RPG creation has changed quite a bit from the ancient times when they first crawled out of the primordial game creator.

Let's see...
Mongoose's equivalent section, in the introduction...

Players and Travellers
Most participants in a Traveller game will be players. Usually, each player generates a character using the Traveller Creation rules; that character becomes the player’s avatar in the game world and is called a Traveller. These Travellers are the central protagonists of the game and scenarios revolve around their adventures and actions.

Throughout this rulebook, the terms player and Traveller are synonymous. The term character is used to describe those in the game controlled by the referee rather than the players – what are often called non-player characters. However, rules that apply to Travellers are usually applicable to characters and vice versa.

THE REFEREE
One of the participants is the referee, who describes the world around the Travellers, presents them with challenges and dangers, and takes on the role of the supporting cast and antagonists. The referee creates the basic outline of the adventures that the Travellers encounter and resolves the results of their actions using the rules in this book as a guideline.

ADVENTURES AND CAMPAIGNS
In an adventure, the Travellers embark on a journey or scenario overseen by the referee. The referee determines what dangers the Travellers will face, from hostile aliens and criminals to solar flares and automated defence systems or even political intrigue and deception. The Travellers decide how they will react and overcome these obstacles. For example, the Travellers may be hired to bring a cargo from one world to another but a rival merchant is trying to stop them and has hired a band of mercenaries to attack the Travellers’ ship en route. The Travellers have to get the cargo through safely.

An adventure can be a one-off game, using Travellers created by the referee specifically for that game and discarded afterwards or it can be part of a campaign. An adventure takes one or more game sessions to complete.

A campaign is a series of adventures, charting the continuing escapades of a group of Travellers, and is the most common form of Traveller – mainly because it is the most fun and rewarding! A campaign can be continuous or episodic. In a continuous campaign, each adventure follows on almost immediately from the end of the last and the fuel, resources and money available to the Travellers is carefully tracked. In an episodic campaign, there are longer gaps between adventures and the game focuses only on the exciting and conflict-filled parts of the Travellers’ lives.

 

[aramis erak]

The GM can fiat up a monster with a 90d covert rank, sure. But the GM can also decide that a mountain falls on you at any time, and this is true no matter what game you're playing.

Not all games. Several have moved final authority to the group, ripping it from the GM. John Wick's Houses of the Blooded and Blood and Honor allow nullifying the GM's narration by majority of group vote. Several other games arising out of the Forge also remove the GM as final rules authority. Including Brute Squad, where you're all going to lose a character before the session is done...

The offending Player can contest the Fudge call on the Game Master or Player. If the Player contests the Fudge call, that Player must state his case and convince his peers that he did not Fudge the storytelling. Once the accused Player has stated his case, the Game Master and other Players must all vote by raising their hand for Guilty or placing a hand on the table for Not Guilty.

If it is decided that the Player did Fudge his storytelling, treat the situation as per the above rules. However, if the vote determines that the Player did not Fudge the roll, then it is the accuser who is penalized! If the Game Master falsely accuses a Player of Fudging, the Game Master loses one Curse Point or, if he has no Curse Points, he must subtract a -4 penalty from his next Brutalization roll. If a Player falsely accuses another of Fudging, then that Player suffers a -4 penalty on his next stat roll.

Note also: if it can hurt a PC, in Brute Squad, the GM has to spend a die from the threat pool. If he doesn't spend the die, the mountain falling on them simply has zero effect on them. Also, a mountain is too big a threat for even a d20 spend...

Few call Once Upon A Time to be a roleplaying game... but when bad faith happens in play, lacking a GM as it does, the group as a whole votes on if it was bad faith or not...

There are others, more traditional in tone, that also put the group democracy to override the GM... Ars Magica 3rd has rotating GMing, and the group is the final authority.

 

[Manbearcat]

I don't think those are givens. I've been in some really horrific games that followed the rules by folks who supposedly knew what they were doing, and some really great ones where the DM/GM didn't follow the rules, because the DM/GM DID know what he was doing.

Sure. A given game might be written poorly such that the actual systemitized play experience fundamentally doesn't work despite the designer expressly telling you "follow the rules and this thing will work." That can certainly be a thing.

But here, in the context of this particular exchange, I was disputing something different. That is the generalized cultural notion that the GM can and should do whatever they want (advice which is intended to supervene downstream engagement with rules which direct otherwise) and that this generalized cultural approach of system negation will lead to either (a) rendering dysfunctional play functional ("game gone good" from the default systemization which leads to "game gone bad") or (b) inherently lead to "game gone better" than the default.

I certainly don't see how the above follows (neither conceptually nor empirically) and I would definitely rather have a generalized "if > then" cultural rule of "if a game tells you to run it as-is with the full integrity of its default...then try that first before assuming the game is either inherently dysfunctional or can be...improved upon...by your drifting/hacking." Now if you run it as-is and it sucks and you're sure it isn't due to user error? Abandon with extreme prejudice or hack/drift away if you're committed to the project!

@thefutilist and @Pedantic , I'll get back to you both at some point here. Engaging with you guys posts will take some time which I don't have presently!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What the two different approaches in the OP to the alarm type spell exemplify is differing level of abstraction. Torchbearer seems to abstract several elements that in D&D would depend on fictional position.

Now what level of abstraction for given matter is desirable is very much a matter of taste. All games of course abstract a lot of things, and couldn't function otherwise. But abstraction also elides details some people might feel should matter. Like in D&D it would probably matter whether the enemy encountering the alarm spell would be a brutish ogre or a magehunter that is an expert on magical countermeasures. Would it matter in Torchbearer? I don't know, but some such omissions are always made with abstractions.

But yes, relying more on fictional positioning on resolution of course requires the GM to decide several aspects of such positioning. This is something some people might want to minimise, but of course, like abstraction, certain amount of this is required in any RPG. Generally I do not see the GM deciding these sort of things as a flaw, quite the opposite, I see it as a feature. I think it is strength of tabletop games that we have a creative and versatile human mind running them rather than rigid computer or strict set of rules.

Now it has already been noted by several posters, not all "GM deciding" is the same. It is quite different for GM to decide that the alarm will be bypassed based on already decided fiction, rather than decide that the alarm needs to be bypassed and then retroactively invent fiction to justify it. And whilst on individual occasion the result might seem identical to the players, in the long run these approaches will yield quite different feel. In a game where there is set fiction it becomes important part of the game for the players to endeavour to learn about the fictional positioning of various things and take steps to use them to their advantage. This sort of solid objective world has reality that one that purely relies on the dice or the GM's momentary whims lacks.

And as player I prefer games where I interact more with the fictional position and less with the rules. It keeps me engaged with the fiction. Similarly as a GM it is more satisfying to me to think about the fiction, and decide possible rules element based on that, rather than other way around. Torchbearer seems to be quite rules first, where the fiction is invented to suit the rules rather than other way around. (Though of course all games use some amount of both.)

What types of actions are not allowed in Torchbearer?

Leaving the camp or town while the other characters remain there?

 

[Campbell]

More explicitly Torchbearer integrates GM Judgement of fictional positioning directly into the rules in a constrained way. If the player wants to do a thing, they describe what they are doing and what they hope to accomplish. The GM then determines the Obstacle by consulting the factors involved in the relevant skill and determining whether they apply or not based on fictional positioning.

This differs from the exception-based design of most traditional games wherein the rules describe concrete, fictional processes and do not provide hooks for structured GM Judgement. So, when GM Judgement is applied it is done in a way that overrides these explicit exception-based rules.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This is the usual no-true-simulation version of the No True Scotsman argument, which, much like you have given up trying to break out into its component parts, I have no real patience for at this point. Until a better simulative technology than a human making up the world comes along, I'll continue to use the one we have. The gameplay enabled by a player interacting with the wide array of possibilities that can spin out from an unbounded board is too valuable and interesting to toss out with the resulting shortcomings.

No. Reducing this point to 'no true Scottsman' is a bit ridiculous. The argument @Manbearcat makes is simply to question the feasibility of doing something, that's a completely different thing.