Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
At the time of resolution, how many do you have and how many do I have? Because I only count 6 for you.
GM fiat - an illustration
- Thread starter pemerton
- Start date
hawkeyefan
Legend
A gazillion!!!
Approach A
1. Imagine all possibilities
2. Choose one of them
Approach B
1. Imagine all possibilities
2. Choose six of them and roll a dice
thefutilist
Adventurer
@Manbearcat
This went super long, if you don't have the time to read it that's ok. I find writing this type of stuff out helps me with y own clarity of thought.
In what follows I'm going to talk about Narrativism and disregard Gamism entirely. I'm going to (hopefully) answer your questions but in some cases it's easier to fully explain a concept than answer directly because there are some points where you've misunderstood me.
I still think we have some fundamental disagreements, if my understanding of what you've written is correct. I need to go over some stuff before I address them directly.
WHAT IS FIAT?
First up is the drift (and I'll take responsibility for this) in meaning of the term fiat. I've ended up using it in two, kind of three, different ways.
1) making a call based on the fiction
2) authority over a certain part of (backstory, resolution, situation, outcome)
3) authority over resolution
When I say fiat is at the heart of roleplay I mean it in the sense of 2. If there is a meaningful distinction between fiat and authority then I'll retract my statement. As it pertains to 3, the only way the GM can have total authority over resolution is if they 'also' state how your character reacts to something an NPC said. The GM can have outcome authority over PC actions towards physical activity and how NPC's react and a Narrativist agenda can still be fulfilled. Whether that's 'good' is a different matter, it's just not destructive to the agenda.
AGENDA AND SITUATION
I'll need to lay out a situation we both understand to get any kind of practical communication happening. So hopefully you've seen Return of the Jedi and I'll be putting it into a role-playing context.
What's the situation? I'm going to assume that last session the players killed Jabba the Hut. I go away and prep the next situation by taking some elements that already exist and creating a whole load of my own.
I want to see what happens between Darth and Luke, between Han and Leia and between the Rebellion and the Empire.
I come up with the idea that the Emperor has leaked his location to the rebellion as part of a plan to lure them in and destroy them. He's going to have a new Death Star and it's going to be fully operational, he's going to have a squadron of his best storm troopers down on The Forest Moon, he's going to have the whole Imperial fleet lying in wait.
I prep the situation by creating the various elements in play:
Luke Skywalker, Darth Vader, The Emperor, a false squadron of storm troopers, a shield generator, an elite full battalion of storm troopers, Ewoks, a ship with old imperial passcodes, the rebel fleet, admiral Ackbar, Lando Calrrision, the millenium falcon, Leia, Han solo, Chewie, a partially complete but operational death star, the entire imperial fleet.
I think those are all the elements and then their is positioning between them.
(a very partial list) Darth wants Luke to join the Dark side, Han and Leia have a kind of thing together maybe, The Ewoks want to eat people. So the ethos and backstory of the various characters in place.
More physical positioning, a partial list. (the shield generator protects the death star, the death stars shield is up, Darth Vader is on the Super star destroyer)
So I've got my situation and situation is in a state of either being Fully Known or Partially Known.
If I show this prep to the players, including the plans of the Emperor, the back story. Then it's Fully Known to everyone at the table. If I keep the prep secret, then it's Fully Known to me and Partially known to the players.
Next it has to be mutually aesthetically parsed for it to mean anything. As a group we need to understand that there is a thing between Luke and Leia and we want to know how it goes. As a group we need to understand that Darth is trying to recruit Luke and as a group we need to understand that and want to know how it goes.
Another way of putting this is that we have questions about the situation and we're excited to find out about them.
Situation and not protagonist. We're excited about The Situation, we're playing to see how the situation resolves. Imagine that we've all seen my prep so the situation is Fully Known. Then we could choose to play through it with different systems taking on different characters. I might decide I don't want to GM and instead choose to play Darth Vader for instance. This is an extreme example but it's showing the primacy of situation as it relates to our mutual agenda.
THE JOB OF THE GM
So I'm assuming a system like 5E or Sorcerer. The standard division of labour. The GM has two primary jobs.
ONE: Play the NPC's as if they were real people* (a more technical version later)
TWO: Frame scenes based on a mixture of fictional positioning and what they want to see next (although the players kind of have this power as well, the GM has final say).
If the players say they all go to the Forest Moon on the old Imperial shuttle, then the next scene might be them arriving, them at a checkpoint while the codes are cleared, them in a docking bay before they leave, maybe the GM frames a scene with just Han and Leia whilst everyone is getting ready to go.
Framing scenes also means deciding the scene specific elements AND fictional positioning at some level of granularity.
The GM frames a scene where the shuttle is being asked to give codes. The elements of the scene are: Darth Vader (off screen), Imperial ships, the shuttle, Luke, Han, Leia, Chewie, the old Imperial ship, the codes, the guy aboard the super star destroyer who clears the codes.
THE PLAY OF THE SCENE BEGINS
I describe the Imperial shuttle and what they see outside. The star destroyer, the forest moon, I say the imperial officer is asking for codes AND
Let's get a bit interesting. I'm thinking off screen about Darth Vader and what his powers are and his connection to Luke. I'm thinking about whether the codes are old and that's going to cause problems. I decide that Vader can probably sense them given his fore powers and relationship with Luke. I ask the players what they're doing and tell Luke he can sense Vader maybe sensing him.
If this is Sorcerer we 'have' to roll if it's a conflict and so we need to know if it. I ask Luke's player if he wants to avoid detection and Luke's player decides he does. We make a conflict roll and Luke fails. I narrate that he knows Vader knows he's there. Luke says 'I shouldn't have come, I'm endangering the mission.'
THE SITUATION HAS CHANGED
I think about how what just happened has effected the fictional situational. I decide that Darth Vader would, given what I know about him, go and speak to the Emperor and the Emperor would tell him to go down to the Forest Moon.
FICTIONAL CONSTRAINTS AND THE BASIC UNIT OF PLAY
Upon learning that Luke is onboard the shuttle. I decide that Darth Vader goes and tells the Emperor.
How did I decide that? Well how it feels is that I'm inhabiting Darth Vader and this is just what Darth Vader would do and so I make that choice in response to the fiction and my understanding of the fiction.
But what's also happening is that I'm seeing that Vader IS going to go and ask the Emperor rather than anything else he may do. Which is an expression of his current ethos as it stands in respect to his relationship with Luke.
So the relationship between how it feels 'this is what would happen' and my expression as an artist is related. I'm using the medium, fictional positioning within a situation and the choices I make within that medium are expressive choices.
ACTIONABLE DECISIONS AND GAME STATE
You wrote:
I have more to say on the matter that is related to my extreme skepticism over Sim-Immersionism's ability to either (1) generate a gameable decision-scape or (2) consistently center PCs as protagonists. My skepticism around these (2) is because GM-based setting extrapolations inexorably put extreme pressure upon play to be "real/legitimate" based upon the GM's, imo extremely fallible, causality-based extrapolations + sense of continuity and that formulation has a tendency to "backseat PC protagonism"
It seems we have major points of contention, maybe. What is PC protagonism? I want to restate what I think you're saying in my own words to make sure we're on the same page.
As a group we're invested in how the situation plays out but there are two factors that give a kind of determinism to it.
Do the characters know about element and backstory factors that are determinative of certain outcomes within the situation?
Let's say they blow the shield generator. How do I decide what happens next? Let's say I haven't prepared the result of a potential action. My extrapolation of the given factors is based on what would happen. What I decide that despite the shield generator being blown. The Imperial fleet + death star wipe out most of the rebel fleet anyway?
My reading of what you're saying is that this would be terrible? The PC's don't know it's going to happen so have no choice in whether it does. It also renders the attack on the shield generator worthless.
I think the choice of the GM to do that is fine. It's what they think would happen and so it's an expression of ethos.
And this is where it gets a bit tricky. Although I think it's fine I also think that the more information that is out there the better. All else being equal I think it's best to telegraph certain consequences but 'why' I think that and why you think that (If I understand you) are totally different.
Am I correct in thinking. You want the choice to be telegraphed and known because the PLAYER is invested in the outcome.
I want it telegraphed because it gives the CHARACTER more choices and thus more chances to express ethos by 'doing what the character would do.' WITHIN the context of the situation and how it plays out.
This may be a fundamental disagreement if I'm right.
CLOSING
To really hammer the point home.
I do think that the GM 'doing what they think would happen,' Does or can give legible choices vis a vis the positioned fiction BUT I don't care (much). This is primarily a gamist concern.
To quote myself from earlier:
You extrapolate based on (1) their priorities/personality (2) what's actually available in the setting which can be fairly broad (3) the resources, positioning of the person doing the hiring.
Jackson has deep roots to the criminal underworld and loyalty matters to him. He's precise, a good judge of character, not massively wealthy. His assassin is someone who is genuinely loyal, deadly, patient.
Bellow is rich, dumb and impressed by trinkets. His assassin is good because of the wealth but also a braggadocio and not as deadly, loyal or patient as Jacksons assassin.
A different player, given the same fictional material to work with, would make a different type of extrapolation. The type of extrapolation made, the causal connection. That's the GM addressing premise. This type of person gets this type of assassin.
This one of the fundamental interactions that allows artistic expression using the medium. It IS within the context of off-screen action but that off-screen action becomes on-screen action.
When it's turned to on-screen action. Characters within a scene, interacting:
I've quoted this elsewhere before.
You know that thing where you're so into your character that you adopt her emotions, mannerisms, outlook, mood, heart and soul? It's a rush? You aren't thinking about your character, you just do what she'd do without thinking? It gives you deep insights into your character that turn out, on reflection, to be deep insights into yourself, your friends, and the world? It feels totally alien and natural at once? You crave it? That's what I mean by immersion. I assume that's what everybody means by it.
If it's an NPC talking to a PC and the player can choose how their character reacts. Then the player has outcome authority.
(and yeah you can add dice to that and I usually do but it isn't necessary because the outcome authority, even in a lot of trad games, is distributed in this precise way)
Sorry for the length. One last quick thing:
The legitimacy I talked about in the alarm example was solely because the scene was 'in situ'. Adding elements to the scene which involve the creation of backstory to explain them is kind of poor form in my opinion.
This went super long, if you don't have the time to read it that's ok. I find writing this type of stuff out helps me with y own clarity of thought.
In what follows I'm going to talk about Narrativism and disregard Gamism entirely. I'm going to (hopefully) answer your questions but in some cases it's easier to fully explain a concept than answer directly because there are some points where you've misunderstood me.
I still think we have some fundamental disagreements, if my understanding of what you've written is correct. I need to go over some stuff before I address them directly.
WHAT IS FIAT?
First up is the drift (and I'll take responsibility for this) in meaning of the term fiat. I've ended up using it in two, kind of three, different ways.
1) making a call based on the fiction
2) authority over a certain part of (backstory, resolution, situation, outcome)
3) authority over resolution
When I say fiat is at the heart of roleplay I mean it in the sense of 2. If there is a meaningful distinction between fiat and authority then I'll retract my statement. As it pertains to 3, the only way the GM can have total authority over resolution is if they 'also' state how your character reacts to something an NPC said. The GM can have outcome authority over PC actions towards physical activity and how NPC's react and a Narrativist agenda can still be fulfilled. Whether that's 'good' is a different matter, it's just not destructive to the agenda.
AGENDA AND SITUATION
I'll need to lay out a situation we both understand to get any kind of practical communication happening. So hopefully you've seen Return of the Jedi and I'll be putting it into a role-playing context.
What's the situation? I'm going to assume that last session the players killed Jabba the Hut. I go away and prep the next situation by taking some elements that already exist and creating a whole load of my own.
I want to see what happens between Darth and Luke, between Han and Leia and between the Rebellion and the Empire.
I come up with the idea that the Emperor has leaked his location to the rebellion as part of a plan to lure them in and destroy them. He's going to have a new Death Star and it's going to be fully operational, he's going to have a squadron of his best storm troopers down on The Forest Moon, he's going to have the whole Imperial fleet lying in wait.
I prep the situation by creating the various elements in play:
Luke Skywalker, Darth Vader, The Emperor, a false squadron of storm troopers, a shield generator, an elite full battalion of storm troopers, Ewoks, a ship with old imperial passcodes, the rebel fleet, admiral Ackbar, Lando Calrrision, the millenium falcon, Leia, Han solo, Chewie, a partially complete but operational death star, the entire imperial fleet.
I think those are all the elements and then their is positioning between them.
(a very partial list) Darth wants Luke to join the Dark side, Han and Leia have a kind of thing together maybe, The Ewoks want to eat people. So the ethos and backstory of the various characters in place.
More physical positioning, a partial list. (the shield generator protects the death star, the death stars shield is up, Darth Vader is on the Super star destroyer)
So I've got my situation and situation is in a state of either being Fully Known or Partially Known.
If I show this prep to the players, including the plans of the Emperor, the back story. Then it's Fully Known to everyone at the table. If I keep the prep secret, then it's Fully Known to me and Partially known to the players.
Next it has to be mutually aesthetically parsed for it to mean anything. As a group we need to understand that there is a thing between Luke and Leia and we want to know how it goes. As a group we need to understand that Darth is trying to recruit Luke and as a group we need to understand that and want to know how it goes.
Another way of putting this is that we have questions about the situation and we're excited to find out about them.
Situation and not protagonist. We're excited about The Situation, we're playing to see how the situation resolves. Imagine that we've all seen my prep so the situation is Fully Known. Then we could choose to play through it with different systems taking on different characters. I might decide I don't want to GM and instead choose to play Darth Vader for instance. This is an extreme example but it's showing the primacy of situation as it relates to our mutual agenda.
THE JOB OF THE GM
So I'm assuming a system like 5E or Sorcerer. The standard division of labour. The GM has two primary jobs.
ONE: Play the NPC's as if they were real people* (a more technical version later)
TWO: Frame scenes based on a mixture of fictional positioning and what they want to see next (although the players kind of have this power as well, the GM has final say).
If the players say they all go to the Forest Moon on the old Imperial shuttle, then the next scene might be them arriving, them at a checkpoint while the codes are cleared, them in a docking bay before they leave, maybe the GM frames a scene with just Han and Leia whilst everyone is getting ready to go.
Framing scenes also means deciding the scene specific elements AND fictional positioning at some level of granularity.
The GM frames a scene where the shuttle is being asked to give codes. The elements of the scene are: Darth Vader (off screen), Imperial ships, the shuttle, Luke, Han, Leia, Chewie, the old Imperial ship, the codes, the guy aboard the super star destroyer who clears the codes.
THE PLAY OF THE SCENE BEGINS
I describe the Imperial shuttle and what they see outside. The star destroyer, the forest moon, I say the imperial officer is asking for codes AND
Let's get a bit interesting. I'm thinking off screen about Darth Vader and what his powers are and his connection to Luke. I'm thinking about whether the codes are old and that's going to cause problems. I decide that Vader can probably sense them given his fore powers and relationship with Luke. I ask the players what they're doing and tell Luke he can sense Vader maybe sensing him.
If this is Sorcerer we 'have' to roll if it's a conflict and so we need to know if it. I ask Luke's player if he wants to avoid detection and Luke's player decides he does. We make a conflict roll and Luke fails. I narrate that he knows Vader knows he's there. Luke says 'I shouldn't have come, I'm endangering the mission.'
THE SITUATION HAS CHANGED
I think about how what just happened has effected the fictional situational. I decide that Darth Vader would, given what I know about him, go and speak to the Emperor and the Emperor would tell him to go down to the Forest Moon.
FICTIONAL CONSTRAINTS AND THE BASIC UNIT OF PLAY
Upon learning that Luke is onboard the shuttle. I decide that Darth Vader goes and tells the Emperor.
How did I decide that? Well how it feels is that I'm inhabiting Darth Vader and this is just what Darth Vader would do and so I make that choice in response to the fiction and my understanding of the fiction.
But what's also happening is that I'm seeing that Vader IS going to go and ask the Emperor rather than anything else he may do. Which is an expression of his current ethos as it stands in respect to his relationship with Luke.
So the relationship between how it feels 'this is what would happen' and my expression as an artist is related. I'm using the medium, fictional positioning within a situation and the choices I make within that medium are expressive choices.
ACTIONABLE DECISIONS AND GAME STATE
You wrote:
I have more to say on the matter that is related to my extreme skepticism over Sim-Immersionism's ability to either (1) generate a gameable decision-scape or (2) consistently center PCs as protagonists. My skepticism around these (2) is because GM-based setting extrapolations inexorably put extreme pressure upon play to be "real/legitimate" based upon the GM's, imo extremely fallible, causality-based extrapolations + sense of continuity and that formulation has a tendency to "backseat PC protagonism"
It seems we have major points of contention, maybe. What is PC protagonism? I want to restate what I think you're saying in my own words to make sure we're on the same page.
As a group we're invested in how the situation plays out but there are two factors that give a kind of determinism to it.
Do the characters know about element and backstory factors that are determinative of certain outcomes within the situation?
Let's say they blow the shield generator. How do I decide what happens next? Let's say I haven't prepared the result of a potential action. My extrapolation of the given factors is based on what would happen. What I decide that despite the shield generator being blown. The Imperial fleet + death star wipe out most of the rebel fleet anyway?
My reading of what you're saying is that this would be terrible? The PC's don't know it's going to happen so have no choice in whether it does. It also renders the attack on the shield generator worthless.
I think the choice of the GM to do that is fine. It's what they think would happen and so it's an expression of ethos.
And this is where it gets a bit tricky. Although I think it's fine I also think that the more information that is out there the better. All else being equal I think it's best to telegraph certain consequences but 'why' I think that and why you think that (If I understand you) are totally different.
Am I correct in thinking. You want the choice to be telegraphed and known because the PLAYER is invested in the outcome.
I want it telegraphed because it gives the CHARACTER more choices and thus more chances to express ethos by 'doing what the character would do.' WITHIN the context of the situation and how it plays out.
This may be a fundamental disagreement if I'm right.
CLOSING
To really hammer the point home.
I do think that the GM 'doing what they think would happen,' Does or can give legible choices vis a vis the positioned fiction BUT I don't care (much). This is primarily a gamist concern.
To quote myself from earlier:
You extrapolate based on (1) their priorities/personality (2) what's actually available in the setting which can be fairly broad (3) the resources, positioning of the person doing the hiring.
Jackson has deep roots to the criminal underworld and loyalty matters to him. He's precise, a good judge of character, not massively wealthy. His assassin is someone who is genuinely loyal, deadly, patient.
Bellow is rich, dumb and impressed by trinkets. His assassin is good because of the wealth but also a braggadocio and not as deadly, loyal or patient as Jacksons assassin.
A different player, given the same fictional material to work with, would make a different type of extrapolation. The type of extrapolation made, the causal connection. That's the GM addressing premise. This type of person gets this type of assassin.
This one of the fundamental interactions that allows artistic expression using the medium. It IS within the context of off-screen action but that off-screen action becomes on-screen action.
When it's turned to on-screen action. Characters within a scene, interacting:
I've quoted this elsewhere before.
You know that thing where you're so into your character that you adopt her emotions, mannerisms, outlook, mood, heart and soul? It's a rush? You aren't thinking about your character, you just do what she'd do without thinking? It gives you deep insights into your character that turn out, on reflection, to be deep insights into yourself, your friends, and the world? It feels totally alien and natural at once? You crave it? That's what I mean by immersion. I assume that's what everybody means by it.
If it's an NPC talking to a PC and the player can choose how their character reacts. Then the player has outcome authority.
(and yeah you can add dice to that and I usually do but it isn't necessary because the outcome authority, even in a lot of trad games, is distributed in this precise way)
Sorry for the length. One last quick thing:
The legitimacy I talked about in the alarm example was solely because the scene was 'in situ'. Adding elements to the scene which involve the creation of backstory to explain them is kind of poor form in my opinion.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
A) You are correct that not all Jacksons would take out a hit on the party. Presumably the DM knows the personality and motivations of this particular Jackson and has determined that he would send an assassin.
B) The DM would also presumably know what means are available to the Jackson, and been able to figure out not only that he could send an assassin(had the contacts and means), but also how good of an assassin. Not all assassins are created equal. Some Jacksons might only be able to send a moderately decent assassin, while the BBE-Jackson would have access to the best.
C) Like A and B, the DM presumably knows what other plates the Jackson has spinning around and would know if the Jackson could or would send the assassin.
D) See A, B and C.
You are overestimating how much the DM needs to know in order to make a good decision. What I list above is enough to be able to simulate for the game whether or not the Jackson could or would send an assassin, and how to go about determining if or when the assassin finds the group.
There are no failure points in a game where the DM and players are on the same page. The players know and trust the DM to have good reasons for why things happen the way that they do.
The failures that happen are due to a lack of trust on the part of the players, and if a player can't/doesn't trust the DM, he belongs in another game with a DM that he does trust.
Why? The gamists still set up camp in the safest spots, take the best precautions, set watches, etc. to minimize the dangers to them. That would include a potential assassin.
hawkeyefan
Legend
“Prep situations not plots” is pretty clear and we can understand the benefit it brings to play.
But running high myth just seems like a preference. There may be reasons behind it, though… and that’s more what I mean. Why do you run high myth? What does that do for play?
That kind of thing.
So what is the reasoning for some of these choices? That NPCs use rules similar to PCs and that there is a diegetic aspect to classes, for example. What principle guided that decision?
I think 5e would benefit greatly from more specific principles for both playing and GMing. The rules should stop trying to be everything to everyone and should commit to a play approach. Especially since the people who have been playing for decades already know they can change things as they’d like.
Which would lead you to the conclusion that it has nothing to do with the amount of myth, no? That it’s more about process.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
Ahh, you have problems with math.
No wonder we're having this failure to communicate.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
First, neither A nor B imagines all the possibilities. There's no way a human can.
Second, approach B wastes(in the example we are discussing) time adding in a extra step. Sometimes it's good to add in that step, like when prepping for the game and being unsure what is going to happen. Like in the example I gave upthread which @pemerton made fun of. However, in the middle of a game where the PCs have decided to drop an avalanche on a giant, stopping game play so that I can create a table of 6 possibilities and then roll to see which one happens, is disruptive to the game. I'm just not going to disrupt the game in that manner.
Last edited:
Doesn't that mean, then, that this idea that GM fiat is strictly superior to any randomised method, is bogus?
Disrupt the game? It takes seconds to think hmm, OK, he could die, he could be hurt, he could be trapped underneath, he could be knocked over, he could manage to dodge it, he could be buried underneath with no way of knowing what his status is.
Are you saying, then, that when the GM unilaterally decides an outcome, they are not thinking about the different possibilities at all, they are simply saying the first one that comes to their mind? If not, then the handling time of the two methods should be largely the same.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
Sure, but then I've never said it was strictly superior. I said that's my opinion.
Oh, I thought we were trying to come up with good stuff. Not just throwing up whatever.
Good luck dodging a gigantic avalanche in a narrow ravine. And I guarantee you that he was knocked over when he died.
I'm not saying that, and it's not largely the same. Not if the DM is trying to come up with 6 good possibilities, instead of just throwing up whatever. Or maybe I just think a lot quicker than most DMs and it doesn't take me that long to run through a bunch of possibilities to find the one I think most likely.
The thing is, stopping to keep good possibilities in mind inhibits the ability to think of more, so you either write them down or take a while to do it and it's disruptive to the game.
