GM fiat - an illustration

[Bedrockgames]

Alright, maybe I haven't communicated clearly. I'll try harder.

The GM can obviously cheat by not following the rules.

The GM is not obligated to follow the rules.
The GM is cheating if he doesn't follow the rules. That's what "cheating" means.
The players are not obligated to follow the rules.
The players are cheating if they don't follow the rules. That's what "cheating" means.

Don't misunderstand what I mean by "obligated". No one is truly obligated to do anything. You aren't obligated to breathe - you can choose to hold your breath, at least until you lose consciousness.

Another example : At an official street fighter tournament, you aren't obligated to follow the rules. You can, as a human with free will, choose to cheat at any time. There will be consequences, of course, namely your disqualification and possible suspension. But this has no bearing on whether you're obligated.

Whether you're obligated to follow rules or not, failing to follow them is still cheating.

An obligation to follow the rules would just mean you were prevented from choosing to cheat.

I would say there are places where it is very much within the rules for the GM not to follow them. But the ‘why’ matters a great deal.

 

[NN]

you can only cheat in a contest

 

[bloodtide]

For which of us might it be more difficult to find something we truly liked?

It will depend on the person:

Person one can look at a large number of options and pick one from that huge list.

Person two likes only picking from a small list that does not have too much on it to pick from.

Well, there is no “game reality”. There’s just make believe that we agree on. So yes, it can change. You’ve pointed out how you as DM have control of the muultiverse… obviously, you change things now and then.

Game reality or 'make believe', the words here don't matter.

In my Spire game, a player had the ability to say there was an in or tavern nearby, once per game session. It’s pretty minimal by comparison, and totally manageable.

Wait, was it not once a day? Or are you saying the game limits each Game Session to One Day. Like if the PCs go to sleep does it end the game session?

If one of the other players asked if there was an inn or tavern nearby, I’d answer based on what I thought would make for interesting play. If I said no, and the Knight player then chimed in to use his ability, then I’d say “Oh right, it does turn out that there’s an inn nearby… you didn’t think of it at first because it’s owned by a drow named Haggard… and you slept with his wife” or something else suitably complicated.

It seems odd to mix up the "Yes Player" rules with more traditional ways. And do you not see your cop out and lie is wrong? Your showing pure favoritism to one player, and hiding behind the rules.

Hostile in what way? Attacks in what way?

Many players get into RPGs for the big ego boost. They love pretending they are "great" or "super" or whatever. They want simple, casual easy button games with a DM that is their buddy, fan and rolls out the red carpet for them. And such DMs are common enough.

Such a player is hostile to any DM not like the above.

Such players verbally attack the DM often as they whine and complain and cry about nearly everything the DM does.

How do your players know if there is a chest in a room? How do they learn if there’s a secret door?

They listen to the descriptions I give, look at the map(s) and look at the pictures. There are a lot of ways a player can role play acting to find a secret door or even try to use the dull rules.

I would imagine that many of your players absolutely know they’re being railroaded. My guess is that they tolerate it because they either like it or it’s the only kind of game they’ve ever known and so they don’t realize how much better it could be.

Well, sure most of my good players do, though my good players are very intelligent, wise and deep. A great many of them I have mentored and help grow up. And most of my good players agree with me on many things, at least in general. So most of them know full well it's a railroad and are enjoying the ride.

When a player is having tons of fun they don't look for games that look a lot less fun, but sure some of them play lots of other games. Some of them have fun casually playing 'Dull Dice' games, where they walk into a room and roll vs a DC 10 to search.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So, what you're essentially saying is that anyone emphasizing simulationist play is for all intents and purposes delusional? Not the most conducive to discussion rhetorical tactic.

I’m saying that anyone who thinks that they’re doing something other than making a bunch of decisions is mistaken. I don’t think that makes anyone delusional.

As I said, I think for a lot of folks this process has become so second nature as to vanish. Like when you’re driving and your mind wanders and you then have to take a moment to think about where you are and how you got there. You may not recall making the decisions and taking the actions to get you where you are, but you did them.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I’m saying that anyone who thinks that they’re doing something other than making a bunch of decisions is mistaken. I don’t think that makes anyone delusional.

As I said, I think for a lot of folks this process has become so second nature as to vanish. Like when you’re driving and your mind wanders and you then have to take a moment to think about where you are and how you got there. You may not recall making the decisions and taking the actions to get you where you are, but you did them.

No one is thinking they aren't making choices. The issue is what drives those choices. If you are making choices that best model a world, you can create an experience that feels like it is working off the model of a real place, that actually feels like a real place. But no one has ever argued they are actually simulating reality. And many of us emphasize that we aren't doing a pure world simulation, that there are other elements of importance being brought into our decision making (for many years now I have called my campaigns drama and sandbox for this reason)

 

[hawkeyefan]

No one is thinking they aren't making choices. The issue is what drives those choices. If you are making choices that best model a world, you can create an experience that feels like it is working off the model of a real place, that actually feels like a real place. But no one has ever argued they are actually simulating reality. And many of us emphasize that we aren't doing a pure world simulation, that there are other elements of importance being brought into our decision making (for many years now I have called my campaigns drama and sandbox for this reason)

Two things on this. First, yes, I get what you’re saying. I don’t think this is something exclusive to one set of GMs. I think almost everyone takes in-setting causality and the goals and traits of NPCs into consideration. For some it may be paramount, for others it may be an equal consideration along with things like challenge or what have you. But this isn’t a unique goal in any way, I don’t think.

Second, there are still many, many decisions made by a GM where this isn’t the primary reason. Many of these decisions may be made prior to play at the world building level. These decisions then later interact with other GM decisions… and for some reason, they’re treated differently, as if one is GM Fiat and the other is a setting truth.

That’s the main distinction I’m making. There is no world acting independently, even if the goal is to portray that. It’s still the GM’s decisions shaping play.

And my point is not that this is in any way bad. Just that it makes it challenging ti discuss when people don’t acknowledge the process as it actually is.

 

[soviet]

Alright, maybe I haven't communicated clearly. I'll try harder.

The GM can obviously cheat by not following the rules.

The GM is not obligated to follow the rules.
The GM is cheating if he doesn't follow the rules. That's what "cheating" means.
The players are not obligated to follow the rules.
The players are cheating if they don't follow the rules. That's what "cheating" means.

Don't misunderstand what I mean by "obligated". No one is truly obligated to do anything. You aren't obligated to breathe - you can choose to hold your breath, at least until you lose consciousness.

Another example : At an official street fighter tournament, you aren't obligated to follow the rules. You can, as a human with free will, choose to cheat at any time. There will be consequences, of course, namely your disqualification and possible suspension. But this has no bearing on whether you're obligated.

Whether you're obligated to follow rules or not, failing to follow them is still cheating.

An obligation to follow the rules would just mean you were prevented from choosing to cheat.

I think you're incorrect about what 'obligation' means.

An obligation is an expectation, something you are 'obliged' to do. It isn't something you are forcibly prevented from not doing.

If you enter a street fighter contest you absolutely are obliged to follow the rules. That is the expectation and what you agreed to when you joined. You can choose not to honour that obligation, and there may be consequences of that - because you have breached the social contract (or legal contract) of the event.

If you GM a game that says 'GMs cannot fudge the dice or ignore the rules', and you have not had some sort of conversation with the players to override this, then you are obliged to honour the dice rolls and follow the rules. That is the expectation you have signed up for. If you still fudge the dice or ignore the rules, you are breaching that expectation and not meeting your obligation.

 

[soviet]

No one is thinking they aren't making choices. The issue is what drives those choices. If you are making choices that best model a world, you can create an experience that feels like it is working off the model of a real place, that actually feels like a real place. But no one has ever argued they are actually simulating reality. And many of us emphasize that we aren't doing a pure world simulation, that there are other elements of importance being brought into our decision making (for many years now I have called my campaigns drama and sandbox for this reason)

What you say here is reasonable but I have certainly seen many posts here (not necessarily this thread) that absolutely suggest that their GMing decisions are not really a decision at all but simply the most (or only) logical consequence of the gameworld, and that any other decision or a randomisation would be unrealistic, hollow, gamey, etc. Or, to some posters in this thread, pandering to the players. I think the proposition that all GM rulings are decisions - choices actively made - would be seen by some as radical, even though I agree it is obviously correct.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What you say here is reasonable but I have certainly seen many posts here (not necessarily this thread) that absolutely suggest that their GMing decisions are not really a decision at all but simply the most (or only) logical consequence of the gameworld, and that any other decision or a randomisation would be unrealistic, hollow, gamey, etc. Or, to some posters in this thread, pandering to the players. I think the proposition that all GM rulings are decisions - choices actively made - would be seen by some as radical, even though I agree it is obviously correct.

Not any other decision; there are usually many possible ways to interpret the situation and come up with the next move. For me it's more about, "Do I feel that this make logical sense in the setting?" That's the question I always ask. I choose not to base my decisions on challenge or narrative if they otherwise can't give a positive response to the question I always ask. If they can (by which I mean if a course of action or world event makes sense and is also cool or appropriately challenging or narratively fulfilling) then sure, let 'er rip. But I need that question answered first, and I won't apologize for feeling that way.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It will depend on the person:

Person one can look at a large number of options and pick one from that huge list.

Person two likes only picking from a small list that does not have too much on it to pick from.

You’re shifting your framing here.

The point of your menu metaphor is that it’s more difficult to find something suitable when picking from a smaller selection.

Applied to RPGs, it’s harder to be creative when your choices are limited.

This is a pretty simple thing to understand.

And I don’t need those restrictions to be creative… I find that they make me be creative in different ways. They challenge me as a GM.

Wait, was it not once a day? Or are you saying the game limits each Game Session to One Day. Like if the PCs go to sleep does it end the game session?

It was once per game session.

It seems odd to mix up the "Yes Player" rules with more traditional ways. And do you not see your cop out and lie is wrong? Your showing pure favoritism to one player, and hiding behind the rules.

Cop out? Lie? What the hell are you talking about?

As for favoritism… not at all. The Knight player has an ability that lets him decide about pubs. The other players have characters with similar but different abilities… so they get their turns to do that kind of stuff.

Many players get into RPGs for the big ego boost. They love pretending they are "great" or "super" or whatever. They want simple, casual easy button games with a DM that is their buddy, fan and rolls out the red carpet for them. And such DMs are common enough.

Sure, there can be a power fantasy element to RPGs. I don’t think it’s limited to players, though. I think your posts generally prove that.

Such a player is hostile to any DM not like the above.

Such players verbally attack the DM often as they whine and complain and cry about nearly everything the DM does.

I have never experienced anything like this. So from my perspective, it clearly has nothing to do with the kinds of games I run. Nor do I expect that the other posters here who play and run the games that I do would agree with you.

From the experiences you’ve shared in the past, it sounds like something very common at your games. So I think you may want to consider what’s happening with your games that makes this such a common issue for you.

They listen to the descriptions I give, look at the map(s) and look at the pictures. There are a lot of ways a player can role play acting to find a secret door or even try to use the dull rules.

Dull rules? We were talking about questions and answers and how you said you don’t want to deal with questions. But it’s such a fundamental part of play… players ask questions and the GM answers… that it made no sense.

If you’re point is that you didn’t like a rule that says the player can askX questions and the GM has to answer… then I’d ask why not? Your players are going to ask questions anyway… so what’s the problem?

A great many of them I have mentored and help grow up.

God help us all.