GM fiat - an illustration

[hawkeyefan]

Either way, they are constraining choice, which leads to good *and^ bad results in aggregate. I would rather accept the possibility of the occasional bad judgement (from me or others) if it means I can make rulings on uncertain outcomes when needed or desired.

Okay, I can understand the idea of that. Can you think of any examples of play where the outcome of an action was uncertain, and you decided to not use dice but instead decided by fiat?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I never claimed that a GM doesn't have influence on how the game goes. Of course they do. So do the players.

Why I like to use a resolution system other than fiat to determine the outcome of uncertain events is to limit the amount of direction the GM can dictate. Not to remove it, but to place a reasonable limit on it.

Again, to go back to the original example... the structure of Torchbearer and the Aetherial Premonition helps to maintain player action declaration. The Alarm spell of 5E D&D, combined with its use of GM Fiat, can totally bypass the use of the spell.

And in TB a dice roll can completely nullify Aetherial Premonition. It is just that in D&D bypassing relies on fictional positioning, such as number of entrances and the capabilities of the enemy. Personally I find a game where such things matter and can be learned and interacted with far more satisfying than one where they're handwaved away and outcomes rely on pure chance.

Many people seem to say that a DM who chooses to use fiat to bypass the spell is abusing their authority or otherwise "being a jerk" and so on. If that's the case, then why the resistance to a system that doesn't support that? Why defend a fuzzy incomplete rules set that allows such "abuse"?

It is jerk move to contrive reason to bypass the Alarm. It is perfectly fine for alarm to be bypassed in (rare) situation where the situation in the fictional reality logically produced such a result. TB system does away with both. And as we don't play with jerks, the former was not problem in the first place, so you only eliminated the latter which a lot of people see as a feature.

Like I don't even hate TB approach. It is fine. It is an abstraction so that you don't have to mind certain details. It is just a matter of taste whether you found minding those details to be interesting or not in the first place.

 

[thefutilist]

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.

To circle back a bit, I think the mode here is important. I'm finding myself becoming more free with fiat and more exacting in my extrapolation of what exists in terms of the fictional circumstance.

I think one of the big differences though is that you don't need to keep hidden information quiet so hidden because it's not a part of the strategic game loop.

I know that Henrik is after the party so I frame a scene where they are camping. The Wizard sets a magical alarm and I'll flat out say 'I don't think that protects you from missile attacks, if someone suspects you've put an alarm up.' And the implication is that I'm not asking this for my health, there's a guy who suspects they put an alarm up and has ranged weapons on the way to the camp.

'well my guy is exacting, is there a way to set up the alarm such that it might catch a ranged attacker?'

'Well it's forest so it might be a bit of guess work, some kind of wits v wits. Although wait, would you camp in the forest then, or would you specifically try and find terrain that allowed you to leverage the spell?'

'I would find terrain.'

'So how about we roll wilderness to see if you can spot some suitable terrain within a reasonable time frame'

'sounds good'

we roll and they fail

'So there is suitable terrain if you backtrack for an hour or so but you can't see any around here so all the stuff I said about camping applies, we'll do a wits v wits.'

I'm just roleplaying with myself now but this is kind of how I do it. The fictional stuff matters but there's a load of fiat involved as well.

EDIT: Anyway my point is that I agree with you. You have to make up your own procedures to get to functional.

 

[hawkeyefan]

And in TB a dice roll can completely nullify Aetherial Premonition.

How so? It seems to me that the spell always provides the benefit stated. I don't see how it can be nullified.

It is just that in D&D bypassing relies on fictional positioning, such as number of entrances and the capabilities of the enemy. Personally I find a game where such things matter and can be learned and interacted with far more satisfying than one where they're handwaved away and outcomes rely on pure chance.

Well, to this I would just say that I find the idea that such factors can be "learned and interacted with" to be pretty inconsistent in 5e. Theres so much that's up to the GM and how the Alarm spell works that it could very easily be bypassed, and there'd be no way to learn or interact with those factors because most likely the GM just decided them on the spot. There are literally no procedures guiding this process. At best, some are suggested.

I would also add that the outcome in TB very clearly does not rely on pure chance.

It is jerk move to contrive reason to bypass the Alarm. It is perfectly fine for alarm to be bypassed in (rare) situation where the situation in the fictional reality logically produced such a result.

These two sentences conflict.

Like I don't even hate TB approach. It is fine. It is an abstraction so that you don't have to mind certain details. It is just a matter of taste whether you found minding those details to be interesting or not in the first place.

What about the D&D process is not an abstraction? The DM imagining things is pretty abstract!

 

[Maxperson]

You are wrong. You are hallucinating a difference that isnt there.

No. I'm quoting fact. Take 1000 DMs and have them run a system where there can be no fiat. The game will play the same all 1000 times. Now take 1000 DMs and have them run a system with DM fiat. You will have hundreds of variations. The game will not play the same.

If you think fiat and no fiat is the same, you are flat out objectively wrong. Even if you put on your blinders and only look at one quick snapshot, the method taken to get there is still different, even if you can't see the difference.

 

[bloodtide]

I don't think there are, generally speaking, that many potential outcomes as you and others are stating.

There are! The only limits on what can happen are placed by you.

Their sense of ownership on the world, the NPCs, the stories and events they've created. I'm sure you view your campaign world as YOUR WORLD, right?

Yes?

You've advocated for heavy prep and long hours in between sessions where you work on the game and all the details and information you consider necessary to play.

Are you going to say to me that doesn't create stakes for you as the GM in play?

I don't see how prep and details have anything to do with stakes in the game. What are you talking about?

No, it's not about comfort. Quite the opposite. Being able to do whatever you want whenever you want without restriction... what could be more comforting than that?

So for you it is not about comfort? What then? Power?

No... it's about challenging myself and my creativity to handle things I wasn't expecting and didn't plan for and about which I can't just do anything I want.

So what your saying is you don't have the will to create things at random and you need limits to help you out.

So only when some rolls and rules give you limits you can be creative.

No, again this is the kind of comment you make that shows you don't understand how these games work. They are not like boardgames.

They sure seem like board games. But I'd guess your just going to say something like "hey they don't have boards so they are not board games...hehe" or something like that, right?

But for example, board games have hard rules all players must obey always. Your games have hard rules all players(including that payer-dm) must obey always. So, similar...

Most of the games I run and play these days are far more flexible than D&D, allowing for all kinds of things to happen.

Ok, but the games also have a great many limits......right?

Sure... but your guesses are very far off the mark. Maybe stop guessing and as you said to me earlier in the thread, ask pointed questions.

I try from post to post, but mostly get ignored.

I could try right now: Can you list a couple of the Big Limits you Must Have in a game to play? Things in the game rules that Force your DM to do or not do something you approve or disapprove of?

Some how I don't think you will want to answer....and you might even say your game is "limitless". But that won't be accurate.....

Okay, I can understand the idea of that. Can you think of any examples of play where the outcome of an action was uncertain, and you decided to not use dice but instead decided by fiat?

Good Question!

It is jerk move to contrive reason to bypass the Alarm. It is perfectly fine for alarm to be bypassed in (rare) situation where the situation in the fictional reality logically produced such a result.

This is the tricky bit. As people will say something is possible and might happen, but "must be rare". And that is a "rare" as in "will never really happen" or at best "can only happen like once a year or so".

 

[Manbearcat]

How are people using the term GM fiat in this thread? If it is indistinguishable from (general) GM decision-making then those using it that way need to sure up their usages, because that is a trainwreck of worse than useless (actively confusing) usage. If that is what you mean by GM fiat, then why aren’t you just saying GM decision-making instead?

Here are the (imo hyper-useful because of its capacity to demarcate vs alternatives) distinguishing characteristics of GM Fiat inherent to my usage of the term:

* Enhanced potential for seemingly arbitrariness from an outside observer because they do not have access to the key components of the GM’s mental model and attendant extrapolations, thus rendering the movement of the fictional state or gamestate mostly or wholly Impenetrable.

Or

* Actual arbitrariness from the reference point of an outside observer because the purpose of usage is GM control over the dramatic state or gamestate (for GM’s perceived betterment of the game; an extremely broad GMing principle with extreme or complete latitude). This is a version of GM Force.

Here, GM Fiat is usefully distinguished from (generalized) GM Decision-making is usefully distinguished from System-constrained GM Decision-making.

 

[thefutilist]

* Enhanced potential for seemingly arbitrariness from an outside observer because they do not have access to the key components of the GM’s mental model and attendant extrapolations, thus rendering the movement of the fictional state or gamestate mostly or wholly Impenetrable.

I've been using it to refer to making decisions based on the fiction that give or heavily influence outcome authority. So I mostly mean unreliable currency.

anyway: Reliable vs Unreliable Currency

But I might have drifted my usage a bit.

Enhanced potential for seemingly arbitrariness from an outside observer because they do not have access to the key components of the GM’s mental model and attendant extrapolations, thus rendering the movement of the fictional state or gamestate mostly or wholly Impenetrable.

So is unreliable currency the same as fiat as described above? To me that seemed to be the issue at hand.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

How are people using the term GM fiat in this thread? If it is indistinguishable from (general) GM decision-making then those using it that way need to sure up their usages, because that is a trainwreck of worse than useless (actively confusing) usage. If that is what you mean by GM fiat, then why aren’t you just saying GM decision-making instead?

I am not really disagreeing, but it was @pemerton who opened the thread using the broad definition you decry here, so others have just mostly gone along with.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

How so? It seems to me that the spell always provides the benefit stated. I don't see how it can be nullified.

It is just a bonus to a roll. So you can still roll badly and get "ambushed" result or whatever.

Well, to this I would just say that I find the idea that such factors can be "learned and interacted with" to be pretty inconsistent in 5e. Theres so much that's up to the GM and how the Alarm spell works that it could very easily be bypassed, and there'd be no way to learn or interact with those factors because most likely the GM just decided them on the spot. There are literally no procedures guiding this process. At best, some are suggested.

Nonsense. The spell describes in length what it does. It is pretty clear what logically possible ways of bypassing it are.

I would also add that the outcome in TB very clearly does not rely on pure chance.

In a sense that there are modifiers to the roll. But it is still randomised rather than decided based on the circumstances. That's literally the salient difference between the methods.

These two sentences conflict.

Not at all and the difference was already explained. What part of it you do not get?

What about the D&D process is not an abstraction? The DM imagining things is pretty abstract!

It is not an abstraction at all, as it actually requires (at least in GM's head) to go though the fictional events that led to the bypassing of the alarm. (Or in most circumstances, to not bypassing it.)