GM fiat - an illustration

[Bedrockgames]

NPCs don't make decisions. We only pretend they do. GMs make decisions. GMs decide if the NPC has the knowledge needed. And why. And who's available to be hired. And how devoted that person is to the cause. And nearly every other factor at play.

But a GM can still make good faith efforts to make decisions for NPCs from their POV. When people talk about treating NPCs as living characters, this is what they have in mind. No one is suggesting it is a perfect simulation of a human being. The goal is for the GM to both feel like they are inhabiting the NPC and understanding what that character wants.

GMs know all about the characters' abilities and whereabouts and so on. And GMs may have some agenda in play... principles that guide their thinking. Make the game fun! Provide a challenge!

This is where finding the GM that fits your style is important. Some GMs will prioritize challenge or making it fun, some will prioritize making it cinematic. Some will prioritize creating a living world, and some will blend some of these together. It also requires a certain amount of flexibility when you are a player. The GM does the most work in a game like D&D or Savage Worlds. When I am a player in a campaign, I am there to see what that GM believes about running an RPG. I have to be honest, I don't get people getting bent out of shape over this sort of thing. Either I join the game and adjust to the style of the GM and their group (which might be outside what I normally go for), or I leave the group and find another if the style is one I find personally doesn't work for me.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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?

Pretty classic technique, sure. D&D does it all the time, like in combat. 5e skills work this way too. What TB2 has done is just consistently apply it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

NPCs don't make decisions. We only pretend they do. GMs make decisions. GMs decide if the NPC has the knowledge needed. And why. And who's available to be hired. And how devoted that person is to the cause. And nearly every other factor at play.

GMs know all about the characters' abilities and whereabouts and so on. And GMs may have some agenda in play... principles that guide their thinking. Make the game fun! Provide a challenge!

But the GM does not know the future. If they have planned the situation beforehand, they did not know what actions the PCs would take in the situation.

5E D&D in an attempt to appeal to as many players as possible, didn't commit to a set of principles to guide a DM. I don't know if 5.5E has done any more in that regard. Other than the very broad goals of fun or challenge and the like. Those offer very little to shed light on a DM's reasoning.

That certainly is true. What I, and several other people, have been trying to explain are the sort of principles a GM might adopt in D&D to avoid having issues.

It's not bold of me to assume that the DM knows what the players are capable of. That a given DM may not know every little thing doesn't change the fact that it's all information they likely know and which is readily available to them. Sure, they may miss a consumable magic item here and there, or even something more significant, but I don't think that changes the fact that the DM has a strong sense of what the party is capable of.

Even if the GM knew this, they do not need to take it into account when planning the situation. I mostly don't. When I plan a situation I do not think, "then they will use ability X to overcome this obstacle and then the monster A will counter their ability Z."
I design a situation that makes sense for the context. Then the player will do what they will with it, using whatever abilities they see fit.

Well, the conversation has been about the process, not the outcome. Welcome to the discussion!

We're talking about clear and observable procedures versus fuzzy and imperceptible ones.

What are you doing with this information? Why does this matter so much to you?

Why not just share it when it's relevant? Why wait weeks or months down the road and then explain it?

Because if the information is such that the characters do not know it and it might still be relevant (like it might still affect things or they might learn it later) then it is not prudent to share it.

Sure, but I had more to say than what you quoted.

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.

Again, the end result si still the same: despite the precautions you might get ambushed. It is just that in the fiction firs method of D&D the things leading to it were such that they at least in theory could have been learned, and certainly are such that they can be taken into account in the future. It is meaningful fiction that can be interacted with. "The dice say no" is not that. I want fiction to matter in my RPGs.

The characters aren't doing anything. The players are.

No, in the fiction characters are making decisions. Based on in-character information. That is what role playing is.

Game mechanics allow players to make informed decisions. They are not the only way to do so, but the benefits of the Aetherial Premonition are more clear than those of Alarm, due to how they interact with the game mechanics.

Such informed decisions are pretty meaningless, if they're not connected to the fiction. I do not play RPGs to as a player make decisions about dice gambles, I play them to inhabit a character that makes decisions about the fictional situation they're in.

No, not really. I'm trying to ease the burden on the GM from having to make a million invisible decisions for every little thing that's going to happen in play because it's not a realistic or feasible expectation. Plenty of GMs make poor calls without any ill intent... it happens to me, I'm sure it happens to everyone involved in this discussion.

You're trying to eliminate important part of the game and replace it with boring dice in fear you might make a mistake. That's pretty sad to me. This is similar attitude I saw in the social mechanics thread, where people wanted to replace players making decisions about the feelings, reactions and choices of their character with rolling dice. Perhaps the ideal game would be one where no one needs to decide everything, and we can just randomise what sort of story we get? Human error finally eliminated, what a triumph!

No it doesn't. Are you going to say that Apocalypse World is more prone to railroading than a D&D game set in the Forgotten Realms?

In a vacuum probably not, as there are other kinds of limitations in AW on the GM, that do not exist in D&D.

Heavy lore play can be as railroady as anything. Probably more so... there's more that's unknown to the players that will be used to shape what they can or cannot do.

But that unknown is not decided by the GM at the moment, it is already set in stone, so they cannot use it to railroad.

It's more about the process of play than it is the level of myth the game uses.

Yes and no. I am of course not saying that the myth is the only thing that limits the GM, just that other things being equal, it is far easier to railroad with low myth.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Wait! Stuff in RPGs is made up? No way, man!

How, when and why stuff is made up matters. Like to a lot of people it matters quite a bit whether the GM decides that a troll is a super tough troll with double the normal HP before the PCs even meet the troll or after they have already been fighting it for couple of rounds.

I didn't address that at all. One of the ideas asserted here was that a GM, vis-a-vis the Alarm spell, would be using some sort of objective criteria to assess its success. My assertion is that so little objective character exists within the fiction of an RPG that such a process is, at best, highly subjective, and frequently entirely subjective.

It's an entirely different matter as to when something was decided. I agree with you however that it's germane in some agendas to a determination of fairness. That just wasn't the topic of this debate.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I didn't address that at all. One of the ideas asserted here was that a GM, vis-a-vis the Alarm spell, would be using some sort of objective criteria to assess its success. My assertion is that so little objective character exists within the fiction of an RPG that such a process is, at best, highly subjective, and frequently entirely subjective.

People are talking about trying to stay true to the world, to events in the campaign, to actions the PCs or NPCs have taken. They are saying it isn't happening in a vacuum and GMs are applying different sets of principles to achieve different kinds of play styles. You can try to be objective as a GM. That is a principle. It doesn't mean it is a physics simulation though or that it will be perfectly achieved. It is about what your goal is. If your goal is to make the world feel objectively real, you are going to try to make your decisions based on things like real cause and effect. People have addressed this numerous times in these conversations. Saying 'but NPCs aren't real' or the 'but the setting isn't a real place' and pointing out it occurring in imagination, is kind of a straw man. Now if you don't like it, fair enough.

The point people are making is there are more objective ways, and less objective ways to help resolve something like the Alarm situation. And it is more objective if the GM is relying on context, details that have been pinned down (either openly or behind the scenes in his notes). That is a sharp contrast to a GM who just makes something happen because they think it would be cool (and nothing wrong with that either, but it is a different style of GMing)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I didn't address that at all. One of the ideas asserted here was that a GM, vis-a-vis the Alarm spell, would be using some sort of objective criteria to assess its success. My assertion is that so little objective character exists within the fiction of an RPG that such a process is, at best, highly subjective, and frequently entirely subjective.

I don't think so. It is pretty simple spell and the methods it could be overcome by are pretty logical. I think most people would arrive to rather similar conclusions. Besides, things only need to be consistent within one campaign. So if the GM decides that enemy overcomes the player Alarm spell with a given method, then then it it is established that this works and the players can later use the same method to overcome the enemy Alarm spell.

I actually find it wild that people find this somehow super fuzzy or complicated.

It's an entirely different matter as to when something was decided. I agree with you however that it's germane in some agendas to a determination of fairness. That just wasn't the topic of this debate.

It kinda is. Because a lot of the discussion relates to who is encountering the Alarm spell, thus it matters when it was decided who the enemy was and what sort of capabilities they have.

 

[soviet]

But the GM does not know the future. If they have planned the situation beforehand, they did not know what actions the PCs would take in the situation.



That certainly is true. What I, and several other people, have been trying to explain are the sort of principles a GM might adopt in D&D to avoid having issues.



Even if the GM knew this, they do not need to take it into account when planning the situation. I mostly don't. When I plan a situation I do not think, "then they will use ability X to overcome this obstacle and then the monster A will counter their ability Z."
I design a situation that makes sense for the context. Then the player will do what they will with it, using whatever abilities they see fit.



What are you doing with this information? Why does this matter so much to you?



Because if the information is such that the characters do not know it and it might still be relevant (like it might still affect things or they might learn it later) then it is not prudent to share it.



Again, the end result si still the same: despite the precautions you might get ambushed. It is just that in the fiction firs method of D&D the things leading to it were such that they at least in theory could have been learned, and certainly are such that they can be taken into account in the future. It is meaningful fiction that can be interacted with. "The dice say no" is not that. I want fiction to matter in my RPGs.



No, in the fiction characters are making decisions. Based on in-character information. That is what role playing is.



Such informed decisions are pretty meaningless, if they're not connected to the fiction. I do not play RPGs to as a player make decisions about dice gambles, I play them to inhabit a character that makes decisions about the fictional situation they're in.



You're trying to eliminate important part of the game and replace it with boring dice in fear you might make a mistake. That's pretty sad to me. This is similar attitude I saw in the social mechanics thread, where people wanted to replace players making decisions about the feelings, reactions and choices of their character with rolling dice. Perhaps the ideal game would be one where no one needs to decide everything, and we can just randomise what sort of story we get? Human error finally eliminated, what a triumph!



In a vacuum probably not, as there are other kinds of limitations in AW on the GM, that do not exist in D&D.



But that unknown is not decided by the GM at the moment, it is already set in stone, so they cannot use it to railroad.



Yes and no. I am of course not saying that the myth is the only thing that limits the GM, just that other things being equal, it is far easier to railroad with low myth.

It's not really 'fiction first' if the GM is also inventing the pertinent parts of the fiction as they go. If it's already been established (in play or in the GM's prep) that the would-be Alarm avoider will take certain measures to try to bypass it, that's one thing. If the GM makes it up five seconds before, and there was therefore no way for the players to know about it in advance, then it isn't 'fiction first' it's 'GM fiat first'.

 

[bloodtide]

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.

No. This is the fundamental difference right here. You say "only a small number of things from my tiny list can happen". I say "anything". You play a Limited Game, I play an Unlimited Game.

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.

There are not. You can make and follow any limit you want, but they don't just 'exist'.

And what you think of as logic is not what you think it is....

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

Right.

Of course you have a stake in play.

I'm waiting on you telling me how.

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.

Your really backwards here. So you can imagine anything, but find it no challenge. But when some rules limit you to only a couple things, then it is a challenge for you to think of something within those limits.

Like I can and do eat whatever I want for dinner on a whim. You want someone to only give you two slices of bread and a slice of ham and then say "ok, make a dinner for yourself out of that." So you take up the challenge and after a lot of hard work you make....a ham sandwich. And you are amazed with your creativity.

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.

So I was partly right saying some limits and constraints are for all.

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.

So just the normal way to play a RPG....

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 would dare to say that is a limit. One I will never have in any of my games ever. Ahem: "Give me any chance I'll take it, Give me any rule I'll break it! Doing it my way!"

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.

This is a very dumb, poorly written rule. So....you are big about "logic" in a game. So why don't you apply logic to this rule? So, once a day the player can Alter Reality to create an inn/tavern anywhere. So the character can be anywhere...the trackless sea, a dungeon, a desert, a swamp..and use the rule and the DM must bow to the rules and player and say "yes" every single time? So why can't the DM use your Logic and say "there are none nearby" if there logically would be none nearby?

And what about abuse? The character can just go to an out of the way place and say "pop inn/tavern is here" and then rob the place and kill everyone inside. Then wait a day and say "pop, another one" just five feet from the last one. And the DM must just sit there and say "yes player"?

What about a character just making an inn/tavern anywhere they want to rest. "Pop" one is always there every day.

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.

A better rule, but still open to abuse. Though guess here even when the player spews "my character can do dumb thing" and the NPC "believes them" or whatever, at least this rule does not overly force the DM to do anything. So an NPC can "believe" the PC has the power to destroy the world and still attack and kill the PC.

Unless your going to say by your logic "believe" is Mind Domination or something.

SEEK INSIGHT

Oh, do I hate such rules. I'd answer "how about you try playing the game sometime you lazy player". A big part of a role playing game is that role playing part...the "acting" part. If you want to find out something: try playing the game. Don't just sit there and say "DM tell me stuff!"

And it is just me, but such dumb questions ruin the game. So a player can just act like an idiot for six hours and just ask some questions and be told "the mayor is a dopplegagger" then go kill that mayor. Wow...exciting game: get an exploit answer and act. Sure it is great for simple, causal games.....but I prefer more "deep" games where the players must figure out things for real.

Just think of my harsh answers: Interesting stuff, your character is about to die, character death, time, The DM, your "logic"....and then rocks would fall on the character and kill them and the player would be kicked out of my game.

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.

Ok, these are all fine examples: thank you. I still hate them and have lots of concerns(see above and below).....

You did not give a good example of one where a rule made you more creative though. How are you more creative when the player alters reality to say "make my special tavern right there DM!"? How are you more creative when you again bow to the player and say "the NPC believes you"? And how is it more creative when the player just asks questions?

Odd that all your examples are also pure player empowerment too.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

People are talking about trying to stay true to the world, to events in the campaign, to actions the PCs or NPCs have taken. They are saying it isn't happening in a vacuum and GMs are applying different sets of principles to achieve different kinds of play styles. You can try to be objective as a GM. That is a principle. It doesn't mean it is a physics simulation though or that it will be perfectly achieved. It is about what your goal is. If your goal is to make the world feel objectively real, you are going to try to make your decisions based on things like real cause and effect. People have addressed this numerous times in these conversations. Saying 'but NPCs aren't real' or the 'but the setting isn't a real place' and pointing out it occurring in imagination, is kind of a straw man. Now if you don't like it, fair enough.

The point people are making is there are more objective ways, and less objective ways to help resolve something like the Alarm situation. And it is more objective if the GM is relying on context, details that have been pinned down (either openly or behind the scenes in his notes). That is a sharp contrast to a GM who just makes something happen because they think it would be cool (and nothing wrong with that either, but it is a different style of GMing)

Oh, I am not arguing that GMs don't value honoring the fiction, etc. That's generally a part of any reasonable play. However, I vigorously oppose the notion that techniques like those used in TB2 undermine that in any meaningful way. Narrativist play is simply addressing the fiction more directly, with an understanding that much of the character of a situation, in a logical and causal sense, is always up for grabs and usually not very amenable to objective analysis.

Narrativist play focuses on the actual content of play, the generation and evolution of the shared imagined state. This is why the rules of a game like DW have such general character. The fictional situations are significant in that they constrain and shape the story, and provide the canvas upon which it moves. Causes and effects are important too, but they're just part of the fiction.

 

[thefutilist]

It's not really 'fiction first' if the GM is also inventing the pertinent parts of the fiction as they go. If it's already been established (in play or in the GM's prep) that the would-be Alarm avoider will take certain measures to try to bypass it, that's one thing. If the GM makes it up five seconds before, and there was therefore no way for the players to know about it in advance, then it isn't 'fiction first' it's 'GM fiat first'.

That's Crimsons (and my and Pedantic and Micah's) point though. And Abduls as well really.


Abdul said: However, that degree really rests heavily on a shared understanding of the principles, agenda, and practices of play! THIS is a key insight in the evolution of RPG practice.


In fact there's an interesting practical question that will come up in this sort of play.

The players have wounded Jackson (the imaginary guy from my last post) and then left to go and raid some dungeon or whatever. They're deep on the trail and have made camp (including set an alarm spell) and the GM realises that Jackson would have got one of his assassin friends to track them down and take them out (maybe Henrik from several posts ago).

So:

A) It is legit for the GM to create the assassin and place him in the situation now because that's an extension of what would have happened.

B) You missed your chance, it's not legit to decide Jackson hired Henrik and he's tracked them to the woods because we're in situ. You'll have to come up with a reason why it didn't happen. Maybe it did happen but it took a while for Jackson to contact Henrik so he'll be along later but not in this 'chunk' of situation.