GM fiat - an illustration

[Bedrockgames]

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.

Well I think making choices that feel like the most logical decisions for the game world works well, but I don't think that means other approaches are wrong, unrealistic, or shouldn't be done. The GM can operate with a mental model of the world but is also making choices

 

[soviet]

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.

How... how old are the people you DM for?

 

[Maxperson]

You didn't actually list anything, though.

What you said is that the GM will know Jackson's personality and motivation, and thus has determined what Jackson would do. Of course someone can decide something about what a character might do, that is consistent with that person's personality and motivation, that is very different from there being a unique or even narrowly-constrained possibility as to what that character might do, given some mentioned personality and motivation.

You also said that the MG will presumably know what means are available to Jackson and thus will be able to make further inferences. What is the basis for this presumption? I've read a lot of RPG materials over the past 40-odd years. I've prepared a lot of them, too. Just considering, say, the material found in the City of Greyhawk boxed set, it doesn't tell me whether most NPCs have the means, knowledge etc to hire an assassin of such-and-such quality. That's before we get to the question of what quality means in the context of trying to ambush someone protected by an Alarm spell - which depends heavily on things like Perception. In many RPG rules, an assassin of a given level or points-build may be quite variable in their perception skill.

Finally, you also say that the GM will presumably know what other plates Jackson has spinning around. Most material I'm familiar with doesn't tell me how many children most NPCs have, let alone how to determine whether one of those children has an upcoming wedding or birthday which might consume the attention of the NPC. And that's just one of a million "spinning plates" that Jackson might be dealing with.

I didn't give specifics, because there are no specifics to give unless I do a lot more work than I'm willing to do in this thread. So I'm going by how I and all the other DMs I've played with in the last 20 years have done things. We create detailed important NPCs, and game play also has a lot to do with how things play out. Unless the DM is half-assing things, presumably he will know the details that I don't have at my fingertips here.

And what benefit flows from those choices?

Depends on what you want out of the game. If a player prefers your playstyle, then there's probably little benefit. If someone prefers my playstyle, then there's lots of benefit.

And what trade-offs are involved?

There are no trade-offs, because it isn't a choice between doing it one way or another. Those who play the way I do, do it that way.

And did any of it ever matter, if the GM has decided that because of his son's upcoming wedding Jackson is too busy to send an assassin after the players' characters?

Maybe. I don't know how your players do things, but my players often circle back around to things and people encountered in the past. That details has a very real possibility of being important at some point. It also might not be.

 

[Manbearcat]

I don't have time to engage with any posts (nor the large ones I've been tagged in), but I do want to say a few brief things. No I don't think that people who believe that they are engaged in Sim-Immersionism are delusional. However, I will say that my concerns lie in the following, regardless of play agenda:

* Interrogation that leads to directness and brutal honesty with one's self about both the actual, moment-to-moment machinery of play and the overarching agenda that informs that machinery.

* GMs are making decisions all_the_time. All the time. It doesn't matter whether you're running premise-intense & situation-sensitive Story Now play in the vein of Dogs in the Vineyard, My Life With Master, Agon...or Story Now play with intuitive, snowballing continuity of malleable myth like Apocalypse World, D&D 4e, Burning Wheel...or something in between with intense sandbox inclinations like Blades in the Dark, Mouse Guard, Thousand Arrows. Or a variation of Trad 5e; Hickmanesque GM Storytime underwritten by Ouija play or Sim-Immersionism featuring Setting-As-Protagonist (SAP?) like a Trad FR sandbox or a 5e Adventure Path or some combination of any of the prior three with PC arc preconception/Power Fantasy becoming situationally prominent/featured (NeoTrad). Or a B/X pawn stance dungeoncrawl or hexcrawl.

What matters is that (a) all GMs, regardless of agenda and procedures, are making decisions all the time and (b) no GM ever is interested in straining credulity with causality-defying situation-framing, decision-space management, or consequence-space rendering.

* So what are we left with? We're left with "why am I making this decision right_effing_now?" I can give you the train of thought embedded in every_single_decision I've ever made as a GM:

1) "Is this an engaging decision-space featuring compelling (for the game-relevant value of compelling) situation and a multivariate consequence-space that provokes and demands thoughtful, rigorous play and assumes robust rules and related handles; put another way, is it richly gameable?"

2) "Is this content premise relevant?"

3) "Is this content genre credible?"

4) "Amongst the myriad of options availed to me which are all credibly, causally downstream from prior fiction, is this situation-state (framing or consequence) plausible?" Choosing the most probable is absolutely absurdist...as if I (or anyone else) is possessed of the mental bandwidth and cognitive toolkit necessary to determine probabilities in complex systems approaching any level of precision...and if, on rare occasion I feel one situation-state is marginally more plausible than an alternative, I'll always defer to the one that leads to maximal integrity of play (which will be system and premise-indexing), hews toward invigorating/provoking in its elements rather than sterile/conflict-neutral, thereby passing muster with 1-3 above.

TLDR on the above, assuming both are plausible, I will never defer to sterility in the case that I'm possessed of a level of comfort that one situation-framing or state-change bears out some minor level of plausibility over another. I'm quite lucky that I don't even think like that so all I have to worry about is the flow-chart of engaging/compelling/rich > premise-relevant > genre credible > causally credible? My flow chart isn't the inverse where I'm examining causally credible first > sifting via some very-back-of-the-envelope, personally imagined subset of most credible > if that state-change governed by most credible isn't rich with consequential action, provocative, and conflict-charged, simply ride-it-out until that loop eventually churns out a moment approximating that.

5) Following from (1) above, "how do I best manage the technical and experiential divide when I'm very learned on something relevant and the players I'm GMing are not (something like climbing, outdoorsmanship, or martial combat)? How can I use the system's User Interface (rules as common language which help generate mutual understanding) to compose and articulate a gameful space where the players are endowed with a decision-set that they can well-understand and then operationalize?"

---

TLDR and hopefully it is clear. I'm a Game Master. I'm running a game. Each game has distinct characteristics (premise, agenda, procedures, superstructure, participant principles, authority distribution, incentive structures, currencies, advancement scheme). No matter what game I'm running, no matter how many games I'm running at one time (not in the same moment, but weekly games), I want every decision I make to be..."game-forward." Yes, each game includes characters and settings and myth and motivations which endow play with meaning and momentum, but I'm wholly preoccupied by the effort to generate for my players the best gameplay moment possible in the game they're playing...right_now. And I want to stack those over and over until we're done.

I will never choose a sterile or mild or tepid moment of play for some notion (of which only I will overwhelmingly be privy to) of "enhanced causality," when an alternative choice is more engaging and provocative. And I will never feel like I (or my players) need to endure moments (perhaps even many!) of conflict-neutral or sterile play in order to "pay for" conflict-charged play later (and please let us not pretend that we haven't seen this all over the place here and elsewhere...that train of thought is ubiquitous..."if everything is cool, then nothing is cool" is one formulation of that absurd take).

 

[Maxperson]

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.

That really depends on the game. For instance, part of the D&D rules is that the DM doesn't have to follow the rules, so the DM by definition cannot cheat. He can abuse his authority, but cannot cheat since everything he does is within the rules of the game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't have time to engage with any posts (nor the large ones I've been tagged in), but I do want to say a few brief things. No I don't think that people who believe that they are engaged in Sim-Immersionism are delusional. However, I will say that my concerns lie in the following, regardless of play agenda:

* Interrogation that leads to directness and brutal honesty with one's self about both the actual, moment-to-moment machinery of play and the overarching agenda that informs that machinery.

* GMs are making decisions all_the_time. All the time. It doesn't matter whether you're running premise-intense & situation-sensitive Story Now play in the vein of Dogs in the Vineyard, My Life With Master, Agon...or Story Now play with intuitive, snowballing continuity of malleable myth like Apocalypse World, D&D 4e, Burning Wheel...or something in between with intense sandbox inclinations like Blades in the Dark, Mouse Guard, Thousand Arrows. Or a variation of Trad 5e; Hickmanesque GM Storytime underwritten by Ouija play or Sim-Immersionism featuring Setting-As-Protagonist (SAP?) like a Trad FR sandbox or a 5e Adventure Path or some combination of any of the prior three with PC arc preconception/Power Fantasy becoming situationally prominent/featured (NeoTrad). Or a B/X pawn stance dungeoncrawl or hexcrawl.

What matters is that (a) all GMs, regardless of agenda and procedures, are making decisions all the time and (b) no GM ever is interested in straining credulity with causality-defying situation-framing, decision-space management, or consequence-space rendering.

* So what are we left with? We're left with "why am I making this decision right_effing_now?" I can give you the train of thought embedded in every_single_decision I've ever made as a GM:

1) "Is this an engaging decision-space featuring compelling (for the game-relevant value of compelling) situation and a multivariate consequence-space that provokes and demands thoughtful, rigorous play and assumes robust rules and related handles; put another way, is it richly gameable?"

2) "Is this content premise relevant?"

3) "Is this content genre credible?"

4) "Amongst the myriad of options availed to me which are all credibly, causally downstream from prior fiction, is this situation-state (framing or consequence) plausible?" Choosing the most probable is absolutely absurdist...as if I (or anyone else) is possessed of the mental bandwidth and cognitive toolkit necessary to determine probabilities in complex systems approaching any level of precision...and if, on rare occasion I feel one situation-state is marginally more plausible than an alternative, I'll always defer to the one that leads to maximal integrity of play (which will be system and premise-indexing), hews toward invigorating/provoking in its elements rather than sterile/conflict-neutral, thereby passing muster with 1-3 above.

TLDR on the above, assuming both are plausible, I will never defer to sterility in the case that I'm possessed of a level of comfort that one situation-framing or state-change bears out some minor level of plausibility over another. I'm quite lucky that I don't even think like that so all I have to worry about is the flow-chart of engaging/compelling/rich > premise-relevant > genre credible > causally credible? My flow chart isn't the inverse where I'm examining causally credible first > sifting via some very-back-of-the-envelope, personally imagined subset of most credible > if that state-change governed by most credible isn't rich with consequential action, provocative, and conflict-charged, simply ride-it-out until that loop eventually churns out a moment approximating that.

5) Following from (1) above, "how do I best manage the technical and experiential divide when I'm very learned on something relevant and the players I'm GMing are not (something like climbing, outdoorsmanship, or martial combat)? How can I use the system's User Interface (rules as common language which help generate mutual understanding) to compose and articulate a gameful space where the players are endowed with a decision-set that they can well-understand and then operationalize?"

---

TLDR and hopefully it is clear. I'm a Game Master. I'm running a game. Each game has distinct characteristics (premise, agenda, procedures, superstructure, participant principles, authority distribution, incentive structures, currencies, advancement scheme). No matter what game I'm running, no matter how many games I'm running at one time (not in the same moment, but weekly games), I want every decision I make to be..."game-forward." Yes, each game includes characters and settings and myth and motivations which endow play with meaning and momentum, but I'm wholly preoccupied by the effort to generate for my players the best gameplay moment possible in the game they're playing...right_now. And I want to stack those over and over until we're done.

I will never choose a sterile or mild or tepid moment of play for some notion (of which only I will overwhelmingly be privy to) of "enhanced causality," when an alternative choice is more engaging and provocative. And I will never feel like I (or my players) need to endure moments (perhaps even many!) of conflict-neutral or sterile play in order to "pay for" conflict-charged play later (and please let us not pretend that we haven't seen this all over the place here and elsewhere...that train of thought is ubiquitous..."if everything is cool, then nothing is cool" is one formulation of that absurd take).

That is an excellent, if very technical, examination of your personal preference. I think anyone who reads that should have a very clear picture of the kind of play you favor. Thank you.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Would building decisions are different, yes. They are also irrelevant. Building the world is part of setting the stage for in-fiction fidelity to take place. Just like players creating PCs. What happens after the world building is what we are discussing here.

 

[Bedrockgames]

What matters is that (a) all GMs, regardless of agenda and procedures, are making decisions all the time and (b) no GM ever is interested in straining credulity with causality-defying situation-framing, decision-space management, or consequence-space rendering.

Just a point here, I don't think this is true. Though I may be misunderstanding some of your language so we could be speaking passed one another. There are definitely times, like if I am emulating a hokey kung fu movie, where I won't avoid straining credulity. As an example there is a trope in kung fu films where a bunch of guys suddenly pop out of the walls. I've approached this both in a naturalistic way, and as a 'who cares if it is plausible' way. The former required thinking through how it would be possible for the men to actually wait in spaces in the walls before attacking and having a clever information system in place so they could time things perfectly, the latter was just, it feels right to have a bunch of masked guys with hook swords pop out of the walls

* So what are we left with? We're left with "why am I making this decision right_effing_now?" I can give you the train of thought embedded in every_single_decision I've ever made as a GM:

1) "Is this an engaging decision-space featuring compelling (for the game-relevant value of compelling) situation and a multivariate consequence-space that provokes and demands thoughtful, rigorous play and assumes robust rules and related handles; put another way, is it richly gameable?"

2) "Is this content premise relevant?"

3) "Is this content genre credible?"

4) "Amongst the myriad of options availed to me which are all credibly, causally downstream from prior fiction, is this situation-state (framing or consequence) plausible?" Choosing the most probable is absolutely absurdist...as if I (or anyone else) is possessed of the mental bandwidth and cognitive toolkit necessary to determine probabilities in complex systems approaching any level of precision...and if, on rare occasion I feel one situation-state is marginally more plausible than an alternative, I'll always defer to the one that leads to maximal integrity of play (which will be system and premise-indexing), hews toward invigorating/provoking in its elements rather than sterile/conflict-neutral, thereby passing muster with 1-3 above.

What kind of decision are you talking about though? I mean if I am making a choice that involves an NPC taking an action, my only thought is 'what would this NPC do'. And a lot of my decisions as a GM flow from thinking of what NPCs would do on their own or collectively

 

[FrogReaver]

To me the primary component of fiat is arbitrariness. Arbitrary meaning determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle.

As such the choice which setting to use is fiat. Often there is also fiat in particular details about the setting (ones based exclusively on historical settings would be one exception). However, even after the fiat produced details are derived there are others from those that are then derived by necessity, reason or principle.

Initial scene framing is much the same. Subsequent scene framing (aka action resolution) though tends to have a greater degree of necessity, reason and principle involved, but there are often some novel and unexpected details that are still produced by fiat.

But honestly, what keeps getting referred to as fiat really sounds to me like it would more accurately be called artistic expression. IMO we need the chaos of that artistic expression to keep the fiction fresh and interesting, while the order we achieve by deriving other elements from necessity, reason and/or principle keeps the fiction grounded and coherent so that the player can successfully interact with it. All chaos/fiat would make a fiction crazier than a lucid dream. All order/principle would make a fiction more boring than watching paint dry.

 

[bloodtide]

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.

If you find limits to be creative, I can't really say anything to that. If you find it hard to be creative when given limits, that is more on you then the game.

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

If player one asks if there is a tavern nearby, you say "nope". But if player two uses their ability you say 'pop' "why yes player there is a tavern right there".

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.

Guess you just accept all the reality altering as each player can crugle the DM with at least one per game...

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.

The power is a curious thing. Make a one man weep, make another man sing. Change a hawk to a little white dove. Tougher than diamonds, rich like cream. Stronger and harder than a bad girl's dream. Make a bad one good, make a wrong one right. It's strong and it's sudden and it's cruel sometimes. But it might just save your life....

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.

Yes, as always.

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.

You are describing your game not mine. You think doing a Q&A session is "fun game play". I do not.

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?

I don't want to sit around and do Q&A sessions for players. Not my idea of a good time.

How... how old are the people you DM for?

12 to 60