GM fiat - an illustration

[Theory of Games]

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.

I provided a definition very early on because these debates invariably turn into "Capture the Goalpost"

 

[hawkeyefan]

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

That doesn't nullify the spell. The spell works exactly the way it says it works.

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

Right the spell works a given way. How does that interact with the rest of the rules? All those ways that it can be bypassed... how do those work? What monsters or NPCs are in the area? How hostile are they? Which of them can detect the Alarm spell? Which can attack at range? Which would do so even against sleeping opponents?

How all these things can be learned by the PCs involves the GM making determinations and telling them that information. Which is perfectly fine in general. But at scale... when it's potentially an intricate web of GM decisions that are interacting and informing the players of the world... that just seems to open things up to errors.

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.

I would say that the salient difference between the two is that one works exactly as expected without fail and is clear to the players, and the other may or may not work, and the reasons for that may or may not be clear to the players.

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

The part where the GM doesn't actually need to be a jerk to make a mistake, or to do something that isn't ideal.

I'm not focusing on trying to prevent bad faith play on the part of the GM... though some of these things may certainly help with that... I'm talking about enabling the GM to actually do his job and do it well. The less room for error, the easier it is for the GM to do well.

I don't think it takes bad faith to make a poor decision about play.

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.)

These are all just ideas. The GM isn't actually modeling anything... he's just thinking about things and supposing. That's abstraction.

Because it's all imagination, there's also no actual cause and effect. The GM can start with the bypassing of the alarm spell, and then work his way backwards to find reasonable explanations regarding the intruder's ability to bypass it.

Not really. In the context of the rest of the paragraph which you cut out, it's clear that he's saying that it's possible to be both, depending on whether the DM is a jerk or not. He's not saying that it's both at the same time.

Here's the entire quote for reference:

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.

So it's a jerk move to contrive a reason to bypass the alarm. But it's okay in situations where the fictional reality logically produced such a result. How is the fictional reality determined? It's contrived.

This is the conflict I'm talking about. It must all be contrived. If there is an enemy capable enough to bypass the Alarm, and with motivation to do so, and who also happens to be in the area and be aware of the PCs' presence... then it's acceptable to do so. But all those things are contrived by the GM.

The remainder of the paragraph doesn't have much to do with my point. Torchbearer wasn't part of my comment. And again, I'm not really focusing on bad faith GMing. It doesn't take a bad faith GM to make a crappy call. And when you start piling GM calls on top of each other, and then expecting them to interact with another stack of GM calls, and then finally to interact with a player decision to use a game resource whose efficacy relies on all those GM calls... well that's a lot of room for error.

Not a lot room to be a jerk. Just a lot of room for error.

The idea that the GM can make all these decisions in such a way as to produce effects that don't violate your label of being a jerk seems utterly bonkers to me. It's an impossible task.

 

[Maxperson]

So it's a jerk move to contrive a reason to bypass the alarm. But it's okay in situations where the fictional reality logically produced such a result. How is the fictional reality determined? It's contrived.

A contrivance has multiple definitions and from the context given, it's very clear that he's using the one that means artificial or justification. The fictional reality, though, while created, has game substance. You can see from how the game has played out and/or how the rules interact with the fiction, what logically fits in seamlessly. That's not a contrivance in the sense given above.

This is the conflict I'm talking about. It must all be contrived. If there is an enemy capable enough to bypass the Alarm, and with motivation to do so, and who also happens to be in the area and be aware of the PCs' presence... then it's acceptable to do so. But all those things are contrived by the GM.

You don't know that. That assassin might have been tailing them for months of game time and the DM rolled to determine which day he would catch up to the party(if he ever found them). The DM wouldn't know that alarm would be up. He didn't contrive to put an assassin there to overcome the alarm.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That doesn't nullify the spell. The spell works exactly the way it says it works.

Yet you can be ambushed. Alarm works just as it says too, yet you can be ambushed. You had a problem with the latter, yet the former produces the same result. What gives?

Right the spell works a given way. How does that interact with the rest of the rules? All those ways that it can be bypassed... how do those work? What monsters or NPCs are in the area? How hostile are they? Which of them can detect the Alarm spell? Which can attack at range? Which would do so even against sleeping opponents?

How all these things can be learned by the PCs involves the GM making determinations and telling them that information. Which is perfectly fine in general. But at scale... when it's potentially an intricate web of GM decisions that are interacting and informing the players of the world... that just seems to open things up to errors.

You probably will not learn all the factors, but you probably learn some. But I can tell you what you for certain cannot learn: the result of dice that are yet to be rolled!

I would say that the salient difference between the two is that one works exactly as expected without fail and is clear to the players, and the other may or may not work, and the reasons for that may or may not be clear to the players.

No. The purpose of both spells are to prevent ambushes. Both can fail to do so.

The part where the GM doesn't actually need to be a jerk to make a mistake, or to do something that isn't ideal.

I'm not focusing on trying to prevent bad faith play on the part of the GM... though some of these things may certainly help with that... I'm talking about enabling the GM to actually do his job and do it well. The less room for error, the easier it is for the GM to do well.

I don't think it takes bad faith to make a poor decision about play.

You want to take away GM ability to make decisions, so that they cannot make bad decisions (either by accident or by purpose.) But at the same time you're taking away the GM ability to make good decisions, that enhance the play. You seem to see GM contribution as some sort of necessary evil that we need to minimised, whereas I see it as one of the biggest strengths tabletop RPGs have over computer games.

These are all just ideas. The GM isn't actually modeling anything... he's just thinking about things and supposing. That's abstraction.

Because it's all imagination, there's also no actual cause and effect. The GM can start with the bypassing of the alarm spell, and then work his way backwards to find reasonable explanations regarding the intruder's ability to bypass it.

The whole bloody game is just imagination and ideas! So by your definition it is all abstraction. Grats, the word has now lost all utility!

So it's a jerk move to contrive a reason to bypass the alarm. But it's okay in situations where the fictional reality logically produced such a result. How is the fictional reality determined? It's contrived.

This is the conflict I'm talking about. It must all be contrived. If there is an enemy capable enough to bypass the Alarm, and with motivation to do so, and who also happens to be in the area and be aware of the PCs' presence... then it's acceptable to do so. But all those things are contrived by the GM.

No. "Contrive" does not just mean "to invent."

contrived
deliberately created rather than arising naturally or spontaneously.
created or arranged in a way that seems artificial and unrealistic.
"the ending of the novel is too pat and contrived"

What I meant to communicate with the word choice, was the matter that was already discussed in the thread earlier: the GM deciding they want to nullify the spell and then after the fact purposefully inventing fiction that justifies that happening.

This is what is of course easily possible in low or no myth approaches, thus low myth is most powerful tool in the railroader's arsenal. But not all GM inventions are such contrivances. If the capability and nature of the enemies or the layout of the location were independently (and hopefully previously) established then it is not a contrivance; they are not created as a response to the player action declaration for the express purpose of nullifying it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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

Well, no... there are limits based on what's happened and the situation as presented. We're talking about a PC triggered avalanche and what happens to a giant caught in its path. If we're going to make a roll to determine the outcome (or even just decide the outcome) there's only so much we're going to consider.

There are also logical limits and genre or setting limits. I can imagine a helicopter flying in and dropping a ladder to save the giant... but why would I have that happen? It goes against the setting and logic.

Yes?

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

So you spend all that time creating all the elements of play, and you don't care how play goes?

Of course you have a stake in play.

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

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, not at all. I'm saying that it's easy to just imagine whatever I want without constraint. It's a less challenging test of my imagination. When you restrict what I can do as a GM, or when I can do it... that makes it more challenging. I have less to choose from, and so I need to be creative to come up with ideas.

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...

Well, I already said that the constraints on the GM are different than those on the players. Some of them anyway; there are some constraints that apply to everyone. But the role of GM is different from that of the role of player, so yes, they have different types of limitations on authrority.

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

A "great many"? I don't know. I think in many cases, there are far less rules than in D&D. You're just expected to not bypass the rules.

Honestly, it's more like if you took D&D and you never altered a rule at all. Never changed an NPC or monster's hit point total mid-combat because it was meant to be a major threat and the dice have gone in the players' favor and they're stomping this bad guy. Never concealed a roll behind a screen. Never fudged a die roll to keep information from the players. Never set a DC artificially high. Never kept a DC hidden from the players. And so on.

Its not that there are really more limits in the games I play... it's that they are actual limits. The GM isn't above the rules. The GM can't just break any rule he wants at any time for any reason.

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.....

I'll go with some very simple examples based on abilities in a couple of games.

Here's one from Spire, the City Must Fall:
PUBCRAWLER. You bear an encyclopedic knowledge of where to get drunk. Once per game, name a nearby bar, pub or inn where you know the landlord (whether they like you or not is up to the GM).

This is a class ability of the Knight class. It has clear instructions on who gets to decide what, and how often. The player gets to declare a nearby place to drink where they know the landlord, and they can do so once per game session. The GM gets to decide the landlord's outlook and feelings toward the PC.

As participants in a game of Spire, we're bound by these rules. The GM cannot say "No, there are no inns or taverns nearby" nor can the player say "the landlord loves me". There are clear responsibilities for each of them, and the GM has to honor that.

Here's another from Spire, also from the Knight class:
BRAGGADOCIO. You are an accomplished liar, especially when it comes to exaggerating your own abilities. Gain the Deceive skill. Once per session, automatically convince an NPC that you can achieve something (whether or not you’re able to do it is immaterial).

This gives the player the ability once per session to have the Knight automatically convince someone that he can complete some task, regardless of whether or not he actually can. The GM is then bound to play that NPC as if they believe the Knight. As GM, you can't just disregard this because you think what the Knight is claiming is absurd... it may be, but he's so convincing, the NPC believes him.

Here's one from another game, Stonetop, which is a Powered by the Apocalypse system. This is a basic move in the game, available to any character:
SEEK INSIGHT When you study a situation or person, looking to the GM for insight, roll +WIS: on a 10+, ask the GM 3 questions from the list below; on a 7-9, ask 1; either way, gain advantage on your next move that acts on the answers. What happened here recently?
What is about to happen?
What should I be on the lookout for?
What here is useful or valuable to me?
Who or what is really in control here?
What here is not what it appears to be?

So when a player makes this move, they roll 2d6 and add their Wisdom score (typically between -1 and +3). Based on the result, they get to ask a number of questions, which are provided in the move. The GM has to answer these questions honestly. He can't decide to withhold information, or to limit the number of questions the player can ask, or to dictate a certain question unavailable. The player does something, and then the GM MUST act as the roll dictates.

I can offer more examples, but I figure that those few give you an idea of what I'm talking about. It's not so much about the game having more limits so much as being about the GM not being able to ignore those limits.

 

[Pedantic]

@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!

The thread has largely moved on, but this discussion tickled something in my brain, and reminded me we've had a similar exchange before. I think we might be running into a values problem when discussing this that we're not actually closing the loop on. You've focused regularly on skill or challenge based play in a somewhat binary way; does this allow for skilled expression, can we evaluate good vs. worse players, is there a challenge dynamic a player is working to overcome?

I'm coming from a position that's much more discriminating about the actual mechanics and expressions of those challenges. What is the kind of gameplay decision a player is making, what does it feel like to make, how do those choices produce the resulting board state? I have questions about the choice of where randomness is introduced, or how big the meaningful decision space is moment to moment that I'm largely importing from other kinds of games.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

You're confusing abstraction with method of determination. In your play a GM determined all these details, and then fed that into some kind of resolution mechanic/fiat/whatever. In the case of TB2 the players applied various factors (nature, Wises, fortune,etc.) and fed that into mechanics. Afterwards the outcome, in the same detail, was presented as a fictional description, including fictional causes and effects. There's no difference in abstractness.

 

[hawkeyefan]

You don't know that. That assassin might have been tailing them for months of game time and the DM rolled to determine which day he would catch up to the party(if he ever found them). The DM wouldn't know that alarm would be up. He didn't contrive to put an assassin there to overcome the alarm.

He didn't?

Why did he pick that stat block? Assuming the assassin has been sent by some enemy of the PCs', would that enemy know the party's capabilities and dispatch an assassin that could conceivably succeed at the task? Is the assassin disciplined enough and is he being paid enough to spend months tracking the PCs? Does the assassin have any personal entanglements that may prevent him from fulfilling the contract, or distract him from doing so?

This is all decided by the GM. With full knowledge of the players' capabilities and their character abilities and location and destination and everything else.

I don't really see how that's possible.

Yet you can be ambushed. Alarm works just as it says too, yet you can be ambushed. You had a problem with the latter, yet the former produces the same result. What gives?

Because afterward, as a player in Torchbearer, I can look at the die roll, see the effect of the +1, and know why the spell failed to work.

In 5e, that is likely not going to be the case unless the DM decides to share all the decisions he made that led to this point and why he made them.

No. The purpose of both spells are to prevent ambushes. Both can fail to do so.

That doesn't change what I said. Aetherial Premonitions works exactly as described. The players can literally observe everything that goes into it, and will know if it succeeded or failed based on a die roll.

Alarm may or may not work, and the reasons for that may be entirely hidden from the players. This is because the process potentially involves so much input from the DM.

You want to take away GM ability to make decisions, so that they cannot make bad decisions (either by accident or by purpose.) But at the same time you're taking away the GM ability to make good decisions, that enhance the play. You seem to see GM contribution as some sort of necessary evil that we need to minimised, whereas I see it as one of the biggest strengths tabletop RPGs have over computer games.

I don't want to take away anything. I'm describing why I think clear and accurate procedures, observable to the players, are preferrable to me than processes that are muddy, and involve many points of potentially arbitrary decision making by the DM.

The whole bloody game is just imagination and ideas! So by your definition it is all abstraction. Grats, the word has now lost all utility!

I'm not the one who tried to label one thing abstraction and not another!

This is what is of course easily possible in low or no myth approaches, thus low myth is most powerful tool in the railroader's arsenal. But not all GM inventions are such contrivances. If the capability and nature of the enemies or the layout of the location were independently (and hopefully previously) established then it is not a contrivance; they are not created as a response to the player action declaration for the express purpose of nullifying it.

Low myth is the most powerful tool in a railroader's arsenal? More powerful that the GM simply being able to decide anything anytime?

Okay, dude.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You're confusing abstraction with method of determination. In your play a GM determined all these details, and then fed that into some kind of resolution mechanic/fiat/whatever. In the case of TB2 the players applied various factors (nature, Wises, fortune,etc.) and fed that into mechanics. Afterwards the outcome, in the same detail, was presented as a fictional description, including fictional causes and effects. There's no difference in abstractness.

So are you saying that instead of being an abstraction, TB method is just rules first as opposed to fiction first of D&D? That in TB it is not actually elided that there was a secret door or that the enemy was an expert on overcoming magical countermeasures, because after the diceroll such details are invented to explain the result?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

He didn't?

Why did he pick that stat block? Assuming the assassin has been sent by some enemy of the PCs', would that enemy know the party's capabilities and dispatch an assassin that could conceivably succeed at the task? Is the assassin disciplined enough and is he being paid enough to spend months tracking the PCs? Does the assassin have any personal entanglements that may prevent him from fulfilling the contract, or distract him from doing so?

This is all decided by the GM. With full knowledge of the players' capabilities and their character abilities and location and destination and everything else.

I don't really see how that's possible.

But it is not decided because of the PC capabilities unless such decision is indeed made by an NPC with such knowledge. (And there needs to be reason for them to have such information.) Furthermore, these decisions are of course made far in advance of the spell being cast, so they cannot be a reaction for overcoming it.

Furthermore, it is bold of you to assume that the GM is aware of all the capabilities of the PCs. I certainly do not remember everything they can do. In my last session they surprised me with Speak With Dead powder. I didn't remember they had it, even though of course it was me who had put in the loot some sessions ago in the first place.

Because afterward, as a player in Torchbearer, I can look at the die roll, see the effect of the +1, and know why the spell failed to work.

So bloody what? You still got ambushed.

In 5e, that is likely not going to be the case unless the DM decides to share all the decisions he made that led to this point and why he made them.

I mean I would certainly freely share such details once the campaign is over if anyone was interested.

That doesn't change what I said. Aetherial Premonitions works exactly as described.

As does Alarm.

The players can literally observe everything that goes into it, and will know if it succeeded or failed based on a die roll.

Alarm may or may not work, and the reasons for that may be entirely hidden from the players. This is because the process potentially involves so much input from the DM.

What does it matter? Why you care why it failed, if the reason is "dice roll low"? That is completely useless information, you cannot do anything with it. Whereas if in D&D the spell fails due something diegetic, the characters can in future try to take it into account and come up with a countermeasure for being surprised in the same way again.

I like a game where the fiction matters, instead of being just some post hoc fluff for mindless dice rolls.

I don't want to take away anything. I'm describing why I think clear and accurate procedures, observable to the players, are preferrable to me than processes that are muddy, and involve many points of potentially arbitrary decision making by the DM.

I mean you're taking away the fiction mattering because you're afraid of the GM screwing you over.

I'm not the one who tried to label one thing abstraction and not another!

See my response to @AbdulAlhazred.

Low myth is the most powerful tool in a railroader's arsenal? More powerful that the GM simply being able to decide anything anytime?

Okay, dude.

GM simply being able to decide anything anytime requires low myth, because otherwise there is myth that limits what and when the GM can decide!