GM fiat - an illustration

[pemerton]

Was that because you lacked the contextual knowledge when playing Rolemaster?

I would say it's because RM encourages a certain sort of fiction, and then lacks adequate procedures for establishing the relevant fictional considerations and constraints.

The whole ethos of RM is very oppositional to D&D. In mechanics, but also in the sort of settings and situations it encourages. These are to be "realistic", rather than the sorts of contrivances - dungeons and the like - that D&D defaults to.

But when adjudicating situations in a "realistic" setting, the lack of procedures for establishing relevant fiction manifests itself pretty quickly. Players with Waiting Illusion on their spell lists naturally look to the use of this to create alarms and warnings. Which then requires the GM (ie me!) to determine all the stuff we've been talking about in this thread, in respect of distances, timing, methods of infiltration etc. And it all just has to be made up.

(also your TB2E play sound cool)

Thanks!

 

[pemerton]

I believe I was pretty clear. The GM attempts to map from prior established facts and causal chains of events to get to the current board state.

As I said, you can assert this.

But what is an actual concrete example? How is this to be done?

In the examples of my own play that I'm referencing, the PCs are active in the City of Greyhawk, which canonically has 10s of thousands of inhabitants; active thief and assassin guilds' a magical university, a college of magic and a society of magi; representatives of multiple other powerful factions; etc.

When the fiction strongly suggests that some enemy of the PCs might retain an assassin to hunt them down, how is a "causal chain of events" established, that will tell us whether or not that assassin has +80 or +40 as their Perception bonus; whether or not the assassin is hung over; whether or not the assassin is impatient (which actually benefits them, in the context of an Alarm-type spell); etc?

I am not aware of any method to do this, that is, to establish the relevant causal chain of events. No method for documenting every salient character in the milieu, every factor that might affect their skill bonuses, their personality which will in turn affect how they respond when they encounter their quarry, etc.

I'm aware of methods for deciding what happens vis-a-vis ambushes, but the ones I'm aware of - beginning with wandering monster rules from classic D&D - elide some elements of the casual chain. Eg with wandering monster rolls, the causal explanation for where the wanderers came from and why they are here, now, is worked out in response to the roll. Not as a precursor to it.

 

[aramis erak]

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 is in doubt until...

1. Someone invokes a mechanical resolution
2. the GM makes a decision by fiat

Fiat resolution is ending doubt by personal choice of the individual with the authority to use their own judgement rather than predefined mechanics.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What is fictional positioning? What fictional position is constraining the GM's decision about, for instance, the time at which an ambusher strikes?

Distance, travel time, pursuers speed and competence in tracking etc.

I don't know what the "this" is, in your post.

"This" is fictional positioning. Time, method of entry, whether there are several entrances, possibly even the skill and identity of the enemy etc.

But there is nothing more abstract about rolling dice to determine if an event occurs, as opposed to deciding an event occurs.

There usually is. We are not talking about decisions made in vacuum without a context. Roll abstracts the context.

 

[Maxperson]

It is in doubt until...

1. Someone invokes a mechanical resolution
2. the GM makes a decision by fiat

Fiat resolution is ending doubt by personal choice of the individual with the authority to use their own judgement rather than predefined mechanics.

It's using a tool in a horribly wrong fashion. Fiat isn't meant to determine uncertainty. I can tell you with absolute certainty, that if a DM abused his authority like that, I'd walk out of that game on the spot.

 

[hawkeyefan]

That isn't deciding something uncertain. It's being certain that the most likely option will always happen. You can't be both certain and uncertain at the same time.

As for rule 0, there's no contradiction in what I am saying. Can rule 0 be used. Yep. Should it? No, because it's a bad tool for this particular job. I've only defended what rule 0 is capable of doing. Never have I defended everything you can do with it, and in fact have argued quite often that you can do things with it that are bad/wrong.

Max... again... I was responding to someone who provided an example where the DM took an uncertain outcome and they decided what happened. I don't know how else to explain to you that someone could do this as a DM if they wanted.

Why is your DM Fiat better just because you have used to to add random chance?

I'm not saying it's better. I'm saying it's just as good.

Make a d1000 and you still won't cover all possibilities.

I think you can cover most of the possible outcomes for most actions. Like your giant example... there's only a handful of outcomes we need to worry about.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think you can cover most of the possible outcomes for most actions. Like your giant example... there's only a handful of outcomes we need to worry about.

But certainly you must see that if you're the person setting up the possible outcomes and their probabilities, the disclaiming of the decision making is rather illusory?

 

[NN]

yeah whats the important difference between

“Dm decides goblin is eating ratonastick”
“Dm rolls on their goblin lunch table”
“gary gygax says goblins eat ratonastick”
“Module J4 room 37 says the goblins are eating ratonastick”

 

[Maxperson]

Max... again... I was responding to someone who provided an example where the DM took an uncertain outcome and they decided what happened. I don't know how else to explain to you that someone could do this as a DM if they wanted.

I don't care who you were responding to. I have an opinion on this subject and I'm giving it. As for not knowing how to explain it to me, I've already acknowledge at least once that the DM can do it.

I also don't get how you can fail to understand the difference between "can do" and "should not do." Is there some help I can give you in understanding that difference?

Can they do it? Yes. Should they do it? No. It's an abuse of DM authority to use fiat in that manner.

I'm not saying it's better. I'm saying it's just as good.

And I very much disagree.

I think you can cover most of the possible outcomes for most actions. Like your giant example... there's only a handful of outcomes we need to worry about.

Fiat isn't limiting like that, though. Without fiat we only have those limited number of outcomes. With fiat out of a thousand DMs in that situation, some will come up with some cool stuff that isn't on the list.

 

[hawkeyefan]

But certainly you must see that if you're the person setting up the possible outcomes and their probabilities, the disclaiming of the decision making is rather illusory?

Not really. Look at the avalanche and the giant. There are only so many outcomes. He could be killed, he could be hurt, he could escape unscathed. I assigned equal odds to each. Though I did adjust the hurt to being at one-third HP and unscathed to two-thirds HP because I wouldn't want to potentially negate the effort.

So what happens is up to the dice.

It would be illusory if say I didn't share any of this with the players, and said "roll a d6" and then whatever they rolled, I said "The giant is unhurt by the avalanche."

Setting stakes and calling for a roll... if that's illusory, then almost every move made in D&D is illusory.