GM fiat - an illustration

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

And my response is to question the quality of the design of games which regularly produce poor quality play! For the first few decades it seemed like the state of the art was such that ALL systems produced hit and miss results, but since the '90s it has become far less easy to assume this is fundamental to the nature of RPGs. There are systems today which pretty reliably do a decent job at a baseline, if played as intended. And at least some games which explain how to do that.

Not that skilled and knowledgeable practitioners necessarily must use such systems, but good play in other ones is achieved, not expected.

 

[bloodtide]

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

Yes, of course....under the whole "if you choose to be a player of a single character you are accepting massive limitations that take away nearly all of your power." So within the harsh limits of the game, rules, setting and DM, the player is at least free to 'try' anything.

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.

Not everyone will get my examples.

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

If you say so

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.

Agreed.

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.

A lot of this goes on the players too. If you play any game thinking someone else in the game is against you personally, you won't have any fun.


As a DM who has had long arguments about "the royal guards should be asleep" or "the door to the treasure vault should have no lock" or "that paladin won't come after my character: all I did was kill a couple families and drink their blood" I can see the use of player favored anti-dm rules in a game.

I can be a nice game...for players...as they know the DM can't take many actions unless they take one first. And even when a player takes an action, they know the DM is limited to a very small number of responses and actions. So the players can watch the dm and approve the action they pick.

Player takes an action, dm takes and action under the watchful gaze of the players makes for a quick game.

And as an Obstacle is defined by the game as something simple and direct, this can also make the game easy to play.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

It's not about what I think. It was based on an example that was shared where that's what the DM did. As you know and have advocated for, people tweak D&D and house rule it all the time. And the rules are vague enough in areas as to leave procedures entirely up to the DM.

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.

Well, I don't know if we can call an avalanche killing a giant a certainty because it's pretend and we can pretend anything we want. Having said that, I don't know how it was all presented or described and how that may have influenced your decision. I can absolutely see the logic behind your decision. I would have likely made the same call if it seemed the obstacle of the giant was resolved. But I could also likely see someone else decide that it lived.

My point is that even when bypassing the standard mechanics, we can still disclaim decision making. You could do something like "I'm gonna roll a d6. On a 1-2 the giant is dead, on a 3-3 it has a third of its hit points, and on a 5-6 it has two thirds."

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

But what makes it the best if other tools can accomplish the same thing?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

My point is that even when bypassing the standard mechanics, we can still disclaim decision making. You could do something like "I'm gonna roll a d6. On a 1-2 the giant is dead, on a 3-3 it has a third of its hit points, and on a 5-6 it has two thirds."

You could. But why you think this is better? Furthermore, it is still the GM who assigns these odds and end results by fiat, so the disclaiming is only partial.

Now GM obviously doesn't need to decide everything, and it is helpful to have rules and randomisers. But ultimately it is part of the GM's job to decide things, and that is not a flaw that needs to be fixed.

 

[pemerton]

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.

I don't think the difference is particularly one of abstraction.

I mean, what does Torchbearer 2e treat as "abstract", in this context, that D&D doesn't?

Suppose that the Alarm spell said, as AoE, "one campsite" or "one resting party"; and suppose it said, as its duration, "until camp is broken" or "until the party finishes its rest"; then some of the difference that the OP points to would be removed, but those changes wouldn't make Alarm more abstract. Just like Aetherial Premonition, it would be a concrete magic alarm conjured up by the spellcaster.

Also, to add to what @Campbell posted, Alarm does not depend more on fictional position. Whether the assassin attacks from outside or from within 20'; or at 7 hours and 59 minutes or rather at 8 hours and 1 minute; are not matters of fictional position - at least in any game I've heard of. The GM simply stipulates - using whatever process or heuristic they use - what the circumstances are. That stipulation establishes some fictional position for the players (and their PCs); but doesn't depend on any fictional position of the GM's.

My objection has to do with the deployment of randomness, because the when and how it's used in a design is significant to the outcome. I used the card game scenario because I think the particular approach (controlled randomness of available resources, mitigated by planning for specific matchups) is a good analog for the kind of gameplay Alarm encourages in D&D. Generally, I object to randomness playing a significant role in determining resolution, vs. determining board state going into the situation.

As I posted upthread, I've done a lot of GMing of situations in which effects analogous to Alarm have been used (namely, Rolemaster's Waiting Illusions). From memory, the trigger distance is 10' about the point of casting (rather than a 20' cube) and the duration is 24 hours (rather than 8 hours), and the triggered effect is always sensory, rather than the "mental ping", but otherwise it is the same.

And I can report from that experience that the analogy of board state or a hand of cards (say, Alarm to negate Hunter), is not apt. There is no boardstate that tells the GM the relevant facts about times, distances, NPC capabilities, etc. Can the enemy learn that the PCs are in such-and-such a building? There is no board state that tells us how many of the people on the city street might have noticed the PCs, which building they went into, that they haven't come out, etc. Can the enemy acquire such information within a certain time? Having learned it, can they spot or hear the PCs within the building but without having to come within 10'? That last one might depend on a Perception check - what is the NPC's Perception bonus?

There are so many points at which decisions have to be made, that affect the outcome or the range of possible outcomes, that I simply cannot see the comparison to hands of cards.

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.

<snip>

This is what I mean by "simulated opposition." The GM takes on the role of the opposition, attempting to limit their interaction with the gamestate to the same tools available to a PC.

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.

Here, I am with @thefutilist, @Manbearcat and @AbdulAlhazred. It's not about "no true Scotsman". It's about the actual reality of what is going on in these gameplay situations. What you are calling a "simulative technology" is simply imagining. And as a GM I can imagine that the assassin is extremely perceptive (say, +80 on Perception checks) or only moderately perceptive (say, +40 on Perception checks). That they are still hungover from their recent revelry (-10 on all checks) or that they are stone-cold sober. That they are impatient (and so take the first shot they can get, even if it suffers a range penalty) or that they are ruthlessly patient (which, on this occasion, counts against them because it means that they sneak up close enough to trigger the warning effect).

And of course there are many, many other factors that are relevant to the resolution one way or another that I might imagine.

As I posted upthread, when I GMed Rolemaster one way I would disclaim responsibility in respect of these matters was to establish probabilities and roll dice. The natural upshot of doing this enough is some version of a Camp Event roll modified by various overarching considerations.

The alternative is to retain the various elements of GM fiat. Which will, I think, push game play towards a different sort of experience. But not a more simulative one.

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.'

<snip>

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.

<snip>

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

Here's an example of this - or, what I take to be an example - from my own Torchbearer play:

The session started in town phase. Golin shared the information that he and Korvin had acquired in the previous session, and Fea-bella did some more research. I figured that with the information already discovered, she had a "Detailed description" of what she was researching, and and for Ob 4 could learn an interesting fact. The Scholar test succeeded, and the interesting fact was that Celedhring, after entering the Shadow Caves, had never left them! Golin's player conjectured a lich; and Fea-bella decided to purchase some holy water for battling the undead. I've been following the gear availability rules from the LMM pretty closely, which has limited what the PCs can buy in the Wizard's Tower without going to the black market (which in this context I'm construing as buying directly from townsfolk or peasants). Holy water is listed as availability 3, ie in Wizards' Towers, Religious Bastions and Forgotten Temple Complexes. I toyed with being a mean GM and saying that, for holy water, one of those is not like the other two. But then I reviewed my list of town facilities for a Wizard's Tower and allowed that there was a shrine, where holy water might be acquired. Golin offered help. But the Resources test (5 dice against Ob 3) failed - the shrine attendant sold Fea-bella the holy water, but only after berating her for her lack of regular attendance or offerings (ie her and Golin both had their Resources taxed down to 1).

<snip>

the PCs did well, and defeated the aptrgangrs with a half-compromise owed. The rules suggest, as possible compromises, "the adventurers are injured, weapons broken, or armour rent and torn". During the conflict, when Fea-bella used a vial of her holy water to good affect against an aptrgangr, I had decided that if they got the chance the aptrgangrs would smash her other vials if they got the chance - and given that she had been dropped to zero hp while Golin had lost none, I put that forward as the compromise. Fea-bella's player protested a little, but when I said perhaps she could be injured instead, the player was happy to lose the gear instead.

As a GM, I have prepared my "dungeon", which is a series of caves and tombs underneath Megloss's house. The players, within the action economy of the town phase, declare their actions (first) to collect information, from which they infer that there are undead in the dungeon, and (second) to acquire holy water, which is useful against undead, and then (third) use that equipment to good effect when, in the dungeon, they confront some undead.

And still on this idea of crosswords + figure skating, I am one of those who does not regard rot grubs, ear seekers etc as inherently degenerate. I'm prepared to allow that, in the context of Lake Geneva play c 1976, they made sense the next step in the escalation of opportunity, threat, consequence etc between those players and those GMs. But what I think doesn't work is when the elements of a particular group's particular experience is presented, without commentary or explanation, as something to be taken up universally. (For instance, the inclusion of rot grubs in the 1977 Monster Manual.) Because what made sense and and even made for good play, in this context where the puzzles were known to work like <this> and the judges were known to have <this sort of disposition>, becomes orphaned from that context, and risks being largely arbitrary. (Which is the standard complaint about rot grubs and ear seekers.)

There are probably contexts in which the Alarm spell, and the GM's decisions about counter-measures, are analogous to the contexts in which ear seekers and rot grubs make sense as principled threats: my first thought is a certain sort of dungeon context, in which distances (for lines of sight, encounters etc) are curtailed and delimited, and in which there is not an open-ended variety of possible intruders. There may be others too.

I can confidently report, though, that my Rolemaster experiences were not illustrations of such contexts!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't think the difference is particularly one of abstraction.

I mean, what does Torchbearer 2e treat as "abstract", in this context, that D&D doesn't?

Suppose that the Alarm spell said, as AoE, "one campsite" or "one resting party"; and suppose it said, as its duration, "until camp is broken" or "until the party finishes its rest"; then some of the difference that the OP points to would be removed, but those changes wouldn't make Alarm more abstract. Just like Aetherial Premonition, it would be a concrete magic alarm conjured up by the spellcaster.

Also, to add to what @Campbell posted, Alarm does not depend more on fictional position. Whether the assassin attacks from outside or from within 20'; or at 7 hours and 59 minutes or rather at 8 hours and 1 minute; are not matters of fictional position - at least in any game I've heard of. The GM simply stipulates - using whatever process or heuristic they use - what the circumstances are. That stipulation establishes some fictional position for the players (and their PCs); but doesn't depend on any fictional position of the GM's.

What? Of course those things are fictional positioning. And yes, the GM decides them, which was the point. In TB all this is just abstracted in the roll, as is the enemy's methods (and capability?) of overcoming the countermeasures.

 

[Maxperson]

It's not about what I think. It was based on an example that was shared where that's what the DM did. As you know and have advocated for, people tweak D&D and house rule it all the time. And the rules are vague enough in areas as to leave procedures entirely up to the DM.

I understand what you are saying. What I am saying is that I don't get how you can decide something that is in doubt by fiat. In the fiat decision there is automatically no longer any doubt, which is contradictory to their being doubt. If a DM is using fiat to decide what is in doubt, I question whether that DM really understands how fiat or doubt work.

It's not something I could ever imagine doing, because the very nature of being in doubt makes fiat inappropriate as a resolution method.

Well, I don't know if we can call an avalanche killing a giant a certainty because it's pretend and we can pretend anything we want. Having said that, I don't know how it was all presented or described and how that may have influenced your decision. I can absolutely see the logic behind your decision. I would have likely made the same call if it seemed the obstacle of the giant was resolved. But I could also likely see someone else decide that it lived.

I could so someone else maybe making a different decision, but the avalanche was massive enough, with boulders large enough, that not even a giant was going to walk away. But I've seen other DMs make all kinds of calls that I would not have made. That's part of what makes RPGs fun.

My point is that even when bypassing the standard mechanics, we can still disclaim decision making. You could do something like "I'm gonna roll a d6. On a 1-2 the giant is dead, on a 3-3 it has a third of its hit points, and on a 5-6 it has two thirds."

I understand what you have been saying when you say that you could also resolve it with a die roll.

But what makes it the best if other tools can accomplish the same thing?

They don't accomplish the same thing. Die rolls are typically resolved in a more narrow manner than fiat. Take the d6 up there. It only has 3 possibilities out of a greater number of possibilities out there. Fiat isn't limited to 3. Or 5 or 10 or however many the die roll represents.

 

[Pedantic]

And as a GM I can imagine that the assassin is extremely perceptive (say, +80 on Perception checks) or only moderately perceptive (say, +40 on Perception checks). That they are still hungover from their recent revelry (-10 on all checks) or that they are stone-cold sober. That they are impatient (and so take the first shot they can get, even if it suffers a range penalty) or that they are ruthlessly patient (which, on this occasion, counts against them because it means that they sneak up close enough to trigger the warning effect).

Nope. Only one of those things is true in the board state that is at stake. We can quibble about how we get to that point, but we have used our limited technology, the brain of the GM mapping from prior events and established facts about the world, to get to one singular result that is true of the current board state. It is a professional failing for the GM to allow that process to interfere with the separate process of determining what the opposition does.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yes, of course....under the whole "if you choose to be a player of a single character you are accepting massive limitations that take away nearly all of your power." So within the harsh limits of the game, rules, setting and DM, the player is at least free to 'try' anything.

So I’m confused. “The ability to do anything is better than having limits on what you can do” applies to players or no?

Not everyone will get my examples.

Well, your examples of your game aren’t always very clear… they seem too focused on how awesome you are.

The examples you have of other peoples’ games are so off base that they tend to reveal your ignorance.

If you say so

If players are literally at the table saying “nyah nyah” to the GM because they’ve somehow thwarted him… I would say things have gone terribly wrong.

 

[hawkeyefan]

You could. But why you think this is better? Furthermore, it is still the GM who assigns these odds and end results by fiat, so the disclaiming is only partial.

Now GM obviously doesn't need to decide everything, and it is helpful to have rules and randomisers. But ultimately it is part of the GM's job to decide things, and that is not a flaw that needs to be fixed.

It’s only better in the subjective sense. I’m not the one who said a method was the best tool for anything.

I prefer it as a GM because I like to be surprised by what happens in play, and I find loosening my control on things to be a good way to test my creativity.