GM fiat - an illustration

[Maxperson]

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.

You're both half right and half wrong. An obligation is more than just an expectation. For example, I can expect you to respond to this post all day and all night for the next 10 years, but you will be under absolutely no obligation to do so.

An obligation does have some force behind it. Not enough to forcibly make or prevent you from doing something, but enough to make you generally want to do it. For instance, when I worked for an employer, I was generally obligated to do what the employer asked me to do. The force behind it was the threat of termination, reduction in salary, or some other punishment that I wanted to avoid. It wasn't enough that I couldn't just say screw you to the boss and do whatever I wanted, but there was more force there than just an expectation.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

No, I’m discussing world building as well.

World buildingng involves many decisions by the GM… and probably at least a few by the players, potentially more… that influence and shape the play experience. When GMs make decisions in game, they may be making decisions that interact with the world building that’s been done.

So their current in game situations are interacting with world building decisions they made previously. It can be a series of GM Fiat upon GM Fiat upon GM Fiat that determines the outcome of play.

My point about this is that to discuss this accurately, we have to be able to actually acknowledge that process. We can’t hide it or obfuscate it or try to say one type of GM decides is different from another type.

We have to acknowledge it and accept it in order to effectively discuss it. This is largely, I think, a big part of what @Manbearcat was talking about when he mentioned interrogation of and honesty about the machinery of play.

 

[Maxperson]

No, I’m discussing world building as well.

Okay, but it's not of much use since it has nothing to do with the game fidelity after world building, which is what WE are talking about. Bringing apples into a conversation about oranges doesn't do much.

World buildingng involves many decisions by the GM… and probably at least a few by the players, potentially more… that influence and shape the play experience. When GMs make decisions in game, they may be making decisions that interact with the world building that’s been done.

Yes they do influence play, but they are not created with it in mind. We don't world build in something to persuade an NPC to do something that we want. World building elements are by and large created independently of in-fiction play.

My point about this is that to discuss this accurately, we have to be able to actually acknowledge that process. We can’t hide it or obfuscate it or try to say one type of GM decides is different from another type.

Sure. We world build and world building affects LATER play. It's the later play that we over here are talking about.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, I’m discussing world building as well.

World buildingng involves many decisions by the GM… and probably at least a few by the players, potentially more… that influence and shape the play experience. When GMs make decisions in game, they may be making decisions that interact with the world building that’s been done.

So their current in game situations are interacting with world building decisions they made previously. It can be a series of GM Fiat upon GM Fiat upon GM Fiat that determines the outcome of play.

My point about this is that to discuss this accurately, we have to be able to actually acknowledge that process. We can’t hide it or obfuscate it or try to say one type of GM decides is different from another type.

We have to acknowledge it and accept it in order to effectively discuss it. This is largely, I think, a big part of what @Manbearcat was talking about when he mentioned interrogation of and honesty about the machinery of play.

I really don't think you're suddenly going to get a acknowledgment that yes, you were right all along and all GM decisions are arbitrary fiat.

 

[thefutilist]

or try to say one type of GM decides is different from another type.

That must be true though no? each GM has a different decision criteria.

 

[Maxperson]

I really don't think you're suddenly going to get a acknowledgment that yes, you were right all along and all GM decisions are arbitrary fiat.

It hard to get folks to acknowledge something that is clearly incorrect.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

That’s not what I said. I said that it can be harder to be creative when constrained.

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".

So what?

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

Well, I don’t view it as “reality altering”, and I don’t know what crugle means, but yeah, I accept what the players do. I enjoy that they can contribute to the game and that I don’t already know how things are going to go.

Yes, as always.

Why do you think that is?

You are describing your game not mine. You think doing a Q&A session is "fun game play". I do not.
I don't want to sit around and do Q&A sessions for players. Not my idea of a good time.

But RPGs involve a lot of questions and answers. The game in question just has a PC move that allows them to ask some questions. It’s similar to a perception check. Though I think it’s much better because the GM is obligated to be honest with the answers, and there are static target numbers that are known ahead of time, so when the player rolls, they know if they succeeded or not. No relying on the GM to set a DC and then also decide what to share on a successful skill check. Or resorting to the picebitchcing often needed to get details in games with no such skill checks.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Okay, but it's not of much use since it has nothing to do with the game fidelity after world building, which is what WE are talking about. Bringing apples into a conversation about oranges doesn't do much.

Yes they do influence play, but they are not created with it in mind. We don't world build in something to persuade an NPC to do something that we want. World building elements are by and large created independently of in-fiction play.

Sure. We world build and world building affects LATER play. It's the later play that we over here are talking about.

Who’s “we”? I made a comment to @pemerton that was specifically about both world building and GM fiat during play. That’s what my comment was about. You responded to that comment.

So take a hike with telling me what I was talking about or what “we” are allowed to talk about.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I really don't think you're suddenly going to get a acknowledgment that yes, you were right all along and all GM decisions are arbitrary fiat.

Well, first… I’m not concerned with getting people to agree with me.

Second, I never said that all GM decisions are arbitrary fiat.

That must be true though no? each GM has a different decision criteria.

Yes, that is true.

What I was saying though, is there’s no difference between GM decisions on world building with GM decisions made during play in that they can both shape and impact play. And they will often interact… which we should acknowledge is GM fiat interacting with GM fiat.

I hope that's clearer.

 

[Maxperson]

Who’s “we”? I made a comment to @pemerton that was specifically about both world building and GM fiat during play. That’s what my comment was about. You responded to that comment.

So take a hike with telling me what I was talking about or what “we” are allowed to talk about.

The people those on your side of this debate are engaging. I mean, if you wan @pemerton want to waste your time talking about apples, be my guest. It won't have anything to do with the oranges that we are talking about, though, and it was oranges that started you guys talking about the apples.

This tangent on world building decisions doesn't at all change what we are saying about in-game fidelity in decision making for our NPCs.