GM fiat - an illustration

[hawkeyefan]

Your use of the word "error" is interesting.

Everything you describe here - the issue of scale, the need for the GM to make decisions which then determine whether the Alarm spell does or doesn't protect the PCs as the players wanted it to, the challenges that these things pose for a GM trying to make decision in good faith - fits with my own experience in GMing Rolemaster that I've already referred to upthread. I was not setting out to be a "jerk" - quite the opposite. I was trying to diligently portray the setting, in all its verisimilitudinous glory.

But that intention doesn't, in itself, provide me with the tools and information necessary to identify and follow in-fiction causal paths. I just had to invent stuff. I found it hard, and ultimately quite unsatisfying.

Whether I would say it led me into error is a further thing. Probably on one occasion I made a scry-teleport-ambush style call for the NPCs that I ought not to have; but the "ought" there is not the "ought" of breaking the rules, or breaking the fiction, but rather producing unsatisfying play that didn't really feel fair to the players. Is that what you have in mind by "error"?

I don’t mean rules mistakes specifically, though I think they also fall into this category. I mean more the decisions that somehow lead to something that winds up being less than desirable. Where I look back and realize I should have made a different call, or handled a situation differently. This can be either because I’m displeased with the results in some way, or the players are… or both.

It would seem I’m in the minority of GMs who, although not jerks, are somehow imperfect and don’t always make the best call!

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

Yes, of course a GM can make good faith decisions for NPCs. I've said a few times that I'm not really worried about bad faith GMing.

My point is that I like for there to be limits on this decision making. That there is a time and place for it, and then a time and place for mechanics. Absent any mechanics, the more that a given situation of play relies on multiple points of GM fiat... like the Alarm spell from the OP, but also many other instances... the more concern I have as a player and a GM.

For example, I think things like the Alarm spell work best when they interact with Random Encounter rolls and the like.

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.

Yes, of course. I've not been describing any kind of play as problematic in and of itself. Some people love railroads! I don't think that's a bad style of play... it's just not one I enjoy. Some people love old school dungeon delving. Again, a perfectly fine way to play, but not one I tend to enjoy a whole lot.

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.

I'll start this response by saying we're getting deep into the fisking and you're pushing into insulting territory, and I don't want to go down that road. So I'll respond to the above bit, and then a few other points below.

The above... the GM has a good idea of what the party can do. They have levels, for crying out loud... a rough measurement of their capability. The game uses challenge ratings and encounter difficulty and the like.

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.

What are they? To make the game fun? To portray a believable world?

Seriously... I'd love to hear what your actual guiding principles are about 5e and where they came from than this back and forth situation we're in.

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.

Again, I find this hard to accept. Do you routinely sic a lone kobold on your 15th level party? Do you send multiple dragons after your first level party?

Of course not.

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

Because I'm playing a game and how the game works matters to me? As a player, I like to understand how we arrive at some new situation. As a GM I want my players to understand how we arrive at some new situation. Their knowledge of the game and how it works is more important to me than the "mystique" of the setting.

Because the less players understand about this stuff, the less agency they have.

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.

According to this logic the Hickman written Dragonlance modules... widely considered a paradigmatic shift in the focus of RPGs that still holds sway to this day... are not railroads.

I think you need to rethink this statement.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

I tell you what... you pull out your imagination, and I'll pull out mine, and we'll measure them and then see who has the biggest!

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....

Genre limits exist. A helicopter would not show up in Middle-Earth. A helicopter could not logically lift a giant out of an avalanche on a rope ladder.

We were talking about a specific instance of play... the PCs triggered an avalanche that fell on a giant... what happens?

There are only so many answers to that question.

Yes, you can imagine the answer to be "The Mad Hatter decides to make jello" but it would have nothing to do with the scenario, so it's pointless.

You would intentionally limit yourself to what is relevant.

Or at least I think you would. Maybe you bloodtide wouldn't, but I mean like the general "you".

I'm waiting on you telling me how.

So you said that the players have a vested interest in the game because they have a single PC.

Then you explained how you have an entire multiverse to take care of.

So if the players are invested over a single PC, why aren't you invested with a whole multiverse?

If you're not, then I'd argue neither are the players.

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.

Yes, making something tasty and doing it well is harder the fewer ingredients you have. I'm kind of amazed to have to type that.

And I never said my creativity was amazing.

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?

No, the game of Spire takes place entirely within the miles-high city of Spire. And although there are maps of each of the many districts of the city, none of them are so complete that an inn or tavern cannot be added to pretty much any area.

So they are not altering the game's reality. They are revealing the game's reality.

And that prompts me as a GM to think about the landlord of the inn and decide how he feels about the Knight, and what else he may be up to that might offer an opportunity or trouble for the characters. I can't just look at the adventure I wrote a month ago with my unlimited power and say "now this happens"... I have to actively incorporate this new information into the game.

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.

Yeah, the NPC believes them. I then play them accordingly. None of my players have used it to declare anything quite as absurd as your example, of course, but they definitely got creative. And I had the NPCs accept it and honored that all in how play went from there.

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!"

What are you talking about? I'd be willing to bet that half your game is the players asking you stuff and you telling them. That's a foundational element of GMing.

I also expect that in your game, there's plenty that you don't tell them.

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.

Again, you have failed to understand how the rule actually works.

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?

You did not ask me to do that. You asked me:

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?

So that's what I answered.

But I think I elaborated above when talking about the Pubcrawler ability. The player is allowed to introduce new elements to play, and I then have to incorporate them right there in play. I can't do it months ahead of time and edit and revise it as needed, and then clobber the players over the head with it. I have to react to what the player did, and in a way that matters to play.

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

Not odd at all, actually. Certainly no less odd than your whole "from my cold dead hand" take on authority.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

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

I just thought I'd post these two quotes... an interesting... juxtaposition, I think we'll call it.

 

[pemerton]

Well the play cycle I describe also includes how I imagine Pedantic and Crimson play but the specific implementation, procedures and focus are going to be different.

Me and you (Pemerton) could, I imagine, play role-master in this style and probably have a good Narrativist time of it.

I can report that I've tried, and struggled. I would never go back to RM, as there is almost nothing it offers that is not also, and frequently better, in Burning Wheel. (I say "almost" because RM's crits a colourful, and hard to replace.)

For my part, I don't see your play cycle as being very close to what @Crimson Longinus and @Pedantic are describing.

 

[pemerton]

Is this something that is actually happened in game?

Yes.

That could be extrapolated from the size and type of the city, but it also probably is not important as there are likely to be enough.


Presumably the PCs know what sort of warehouse they need depends on what their plan is, thus they search for one that is suitable or can be made so. For example if their plan requires only one entrance they find one with just one entrance or block other entrances. Or again, if they don't, and leave other entrances open, then that matters, because the fiction matters and the choices matter!

Like I get that not everyone cares for that level of detail. Perhaps you just want to have trap setting roll, and what the characters actually exactly do is mere flavour. But I think it is pretty clear that in doing it that way something rather significant is also lost.

Is this something you've actually resolved in a game?

In my experience, it is not easy - do the players, for instance, check whether there are hatches in the roof? A rear entrance from the canal? What if no one mentions the rear entrance when the players are doing their set-up, and then it occurs to the GM that there would be such a thing for the assassin to enter by?

This is also an example of what I mean by saying that the resolution method shifts focus away from what is core to the situation (eg Jackson and Bellow and their assassins, as @thefutilist described them upthread) to matters of architecture, and construction, and transportation (do these warehouses have upper entrances with blocks and tackles, like some 19th century warehouses?).

And I can report, from experience, that these are absolutely the sorts of things that I have found comes up in games that use map-and-key style resolution for these sorts of scenarios. The normal method of GM disclaiming of decision-making, in my experience, is to set odds and make rolls. Which, again, is not an example of extrapolating along causal pathways, but rather an alternative to that.

 

[pemerton]

I want the situation and choices of the PCs to matter.

Who doesn't? I don't see what this tells me about how, as a GM, to make decisions about assassins breaking into warehouses where the PCs have set a trap.

 

[Maxperson]

He didn't?

Not in that example, no.

Why did he pick that stat block?

No idea, but it was selected prior, so it had nothing to do with any alarm spell.

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?

Maybe, but it doesn't matter. Assassins exist kill powerful people and would be prepared for any number of situations. Being capable of overcoming the alarm spell would just be a happy coincidence.

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?

No idea. Those would have been figured out by the DM well prior to the encounter based on in-fiction circumstances.

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 sometimes make an encounter while thinking about the PCs' capabilities, and sometimes I don't even consider them at all. In any case, I already stated that he couldn't know that alarm would be in use. Hell, he probably wouldn't even have known when the day was selected if the party would be in town or out in the field. Players often dither around in town, or pass through in the blink of an eye and the DM can't know which until it happens.

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

I do, though, so I know it can easily be done.

 

[bloodtide]

It isn’t that hard to sense this when you are in a campaign. People sense when they are being railroaded for example and they can sense when the world is making logical sense around them

Players have railroad sense? I've never met one....and I'm a Railroad Tycoon.

I just said in my post because the ogre coming to avenge his brother likely mentions it as he is attacking. But it could be other ways. But the point here is logical connection is fairly discernible even they don’t understand the specifics (I.e. they kill an ogre one day then a few days later are attacked by a very angry ogre, who is probably wearing similar clothing or looks like he comes from the same tribe)

The idea that the DM must explain everything in detail to the players so the players can approve of it is wrong to me.

I recall that you've previously posted about players hating you, assaulting you (or threatening to assault you), and having had multiple groups and campaigns fall apart because players felt you'd been unfair to them.

I do have an active life.

You can download the core rules for Burning Wheel for free, from DriveThru RPG. Why not have a read of them?

What would be the point? So I can quote page numbers?

I tell you what... you pull out your imagination, and I'll pull out mine, and we'll measure them and then see who has the biggest!

Well.....I imagine I'd win!

Genre limits exist. A helicopter would not show up in Middle-Earth. A helicopter could not logically lift a giant out of an avalanche on a rope ladder.

This is all on you. Just because you personally don't like something, does not make it some universal limit law.

We were talking about a specific instance of play... the PCs triggered an avalanche that fell on a giant... what happens?

There are only so many answers to that question.

I get that you can only think of a small number of answers, but that does not apply to everyone else.

Yes, you can imagine the answer to be "The Mad Hatter decides to make jello" but it would have nothing to do with the scenario, so it's pointless.

This is where the amazing power of imagination and creation of some DMs comes in: the few that stand out from the rest.

You would intentionally limit yourself to what is relevant.

Of course what "relevant" to one person is not the same for everyone.

So you said that the players have a vested interest in the game because they have a single PC.

Then you explained how you have an entire multiverse to take care of.

So if the players are invested over a single PC, why aren't you invested with a whole multiverse?

If you're not, then I'd argue neither are the players.

Well, there is a huge difference between the player and the DM, but guess we'd need a whole thread for this....

Yes, making something tasty and doing it well is harder the fewer ingredients you have. I'm kind of amazed to have to type that.

And I never said my creativity was amazing.

Did you even read my example?

No, the game of Spire takes place entirely within the miles-high city of Spire. And although there are maps of each of the many districts of the city, none of them are so complete that an inn or tavern cannot be added to pretty much any area.

So they are not altering the game's reality. They are revealing the game's reality.

Weird...a game limited to one city. But it is not weird at all that a character can make an inn/tavern every day?

And that prompts me as a GM to think about the landlord of the inn and decide how he feels about the Knight, and what else he may be up to that might offer an opportunity or trouble for the characters. I can't just look at the adventure I wrote a month ago with my unlimited power and say "now this happens"... I have to actively incorporate this new information into the game.

So when you just make up stuff about the landlord and inn for a minute or two, you are doing what us other DM do for a whole game. And other DMs don't need a player's permission to make stuff up.

Yeah, the NPC believes them. I then play them accordingly. None of my players have used it to declare anything quite as absurd as your example, of course, but they definitely got creative. And I had the NPCs accept it and honored that all in how play went from there.

My point is your rules don't have any thing to stop players from being jerks as they are so hostile to the DM and so pro player. If a player did try something, all your DM could do is say "yes, player".

But say, for example, in my game, if a player tried the dumb "my NPC buddy Bob gives me a million gold coins", I could just laugh in the players face and say "nope".

What are you talking about? I'd be willing to bet that half your game is the players asking you stuff and you telling them. That's a foundational element of GMing.

Not my foundation.

My RPG Foundation is Role-Playing(Acting) to do most things in the game.

I also expect that in your game, there's plenty that you don't tell them.

Eh, only like 99% of things...

But I think I elaborated above when talking about the Pubcrawler ability. The player is allowed to introduce new elements to play, and I then have to incorporate them right there in play. I can't do it months ahead of time and edit and revise it as needed, and then clobber the players over the head with it. I have to react to what the player did, and in a way that matters to play.

Well, in my game it is always Clobbering Time!

And my game is not just a big blank until the player(s) give me permission to create something they want.

 

[Maxperson]

This is a perfectly good articulation. I know this gets seen as some sort of 'attack' by some, but IMHO, only the very thinnest of situations, and even then with significant elision, are suitable to be subject to this process. No human mind can encompass reality with much fidelity. That is, we are obviously competent to walk, drive a car, etc. and our regular successes here indicates that humans can extrapolate and plan physical activities in the real world and judge speed, distance, simple first-order causality, etc.

But look at how BAD we actually are at much beyond that! Situations regularly go against our notions, perhaps even most of the time to an extent. And all this is with actual information to go on and motive to get it right.

I just do not accept that there is some kind of objective rational GMing techniques. Well, there is, but the grounds of that, it's motives and principles rest in the social dynamics of play, not in some kind of rational calculations of fictional reality.

Situations in real life usually have us in the PC position. We rarely get an overview of what is going on, including behind the scenes stuff like the DM gets. When we do get that, we predict situations fairly well.