GM fiat - an illustration

[pemerton]

For the sake of an enduringly inferable, gameable decision-space, whether that inclusion of the implausible is done stochastically (for further maximum plausibility!) or selected by GM fiat on any given occasion, the players need to have some way of understanding when/how the GM's secret mental model has opted out of the most plausible and, instead, selected for the implausible.

Given that the mental model and the dicing or fiating is all "behind the screen/in the GM's head" (table-facing procedures and meta-conversations are verboten...this stuff is mystified for immersion particulars), this particular process becomes some combination of fraught + significantly laborious.

I still wonder whether "mental model" just means what the GM imagines.

But I do agree that, once the GM is trying to include the implausible so as to enhance overall plausibility, players inferring to outcomes becomes more difficult. As a player, knowing that something unexpected will happen doesn't help me work out which of the many possible unexpected things that will be!

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yeah, good example. IMO world building decisions absolutely should affect resolution this way. And perhaps in this instance the PCs had not learned about this fact beforehand, and it happened to be one that worked against them. But as the fact was known to the GM from the get go, it was in principle learnable. And of course in some other instance some other pre-established fact will work in the characters' favour. Furthermore, now the PCs know of this so in future they can take into account and perhaps even learn this technique themselves.

To me the world having this sort of concreteness is a benefit. To me it feels more real that way (though I recognise this is subjective.) But it definitely makes possible interaction with the world that in the fiction after method would not be possible.

This is the key distinction here. It is learnable. The GM can even explain it to the PCs after. As long as it is a concrete concept the GM was operating by the entire time, it is fair. What would be unfair is the GM making it up on the spot. This is why building trust is important. If the GM is always striving to have their choices be fair as possible, they are going to be operating on much firmer ground when this sort of thing arises.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

But they are. Like there are many ways of making decisions, many different factors that go into decision making.

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.

What we have to acknowledge in order to discuss it, is the complexity and nuance of decision making process. Lumping it all into unexamined "GM fiat" black box is myopic and unhelpful.

 

[pemerton]

It is hard to read posts like this and not feel like all you are ever doing is lawyering our words Pemerton. I had a whole response that I think was sound, but I also realized this area of discussion with you just becomes about painting people into corners with their own words

Well I read @Micah Sweet's post and want to know who does he think he is addressing? Which is why I asked the question.

And to me it seems like Micah Sweet, and maybe you, want to create this implication that all these other roleplayers, using techniques and procedures different from the ones you use, are indifferent to setting logic and/or creating all these implausible fictions. But when you're actually asked to defend the implication, you don't, or can't, or won't.

I mean, I've got a lot of actual play posts on these boards. Anyone can read them, and tell me which bits they think are implausible. (Eg @Maxperson once argued that it is implausible that lightning would blast the front of a house away. Looking at some of the images when I Google "lightning blasts house", I don't agree.)

 

[FrogReaver]

Again, this is just a straw man. People are trying to make a naturalistic world, a model sufficient for a game. They aren't pretending to be a computer that simulates reality. But in reality, things that happen are still bound by logic. Even improbably events, when you roll them back, have a logic and cause and effect that makes sense. All most people are saying here is that they try create a gaming experience in the world bound by cause and effect and naturalistic reasoning. But it is more than just that. They try to run NPCs as if they were real, operating on real personalities, motives, etc. It is the difference between starting with what the villain wants to do to the party, for example cut them off before they reach the Duke's manor, then figuring out what steps that NPC needs to take in order to cut the party off, versus deciding that the NPC and his men just so up because it is dramatically appropriate. Also nothing in the former precludes rolling dice. Most GMs like this will rely on randomness from time to time to help achieve a better sense of verisimilitude. They aren't obligated to but if you follow discussions by people who play these games you see random rolls form a large aspect of the style of play (but usually as tools, not as requirements).

And to be clear, nothing wrong with the other approach I mentioned in the example. Like I said in my example about men popping out of walls. I've done that when it is dramatically appropriate in some games because I wanted to emulate a thrilling Cheng Cheh movie. But I have also been in more naturalistic games, where something like that doesn't happen because it is appropriate, but you make it something that could happen provided there is an appropriate set up (in which case, if it does happen, it is likely to go down very differently and be easier for your players to detect or hear about ahead of time).



I don't even think sim-immersionist is the best way to play. As I have said, I often run games that are drama and sandbox, while the rest of the time run games that are monster of the week. And I avoid language like simulationist. But I don't understand why folks in these threads are so bent on proving this style doesn't exist or is somehow absurd when people clearly engage in it all the time

I want to note more explicitly. The fiat was more around wanting to emulate a specific genre. Once you made that decision, having guys pop out of walls was a natural consequence of that prior decision (not fiat). The only other major piece of fiat there may have been the timing.

But even then, it’s not random whim driving your decisions (except maybe the choice of genre), it’s artistic expression. You had guys jump out of the wall because it was evocative of the genre you were wanting to emulate and dramatic at that moment. That part isn’t fiat, it served a purpose and was based on the ‘evoke chosen genre’ principle.

 

[pemerton]

People are trying to make a naturalistic world, a model sufficient for a game.

<snip>

But in reality, things that happen are still bound by logic. Even improbably events, when you roll them back, have a logic and cause and effect that makes sense. All most people are saying here is that they try create a gaming experience in the world bound by cause and effect and naturalistic reasoning. But it is more than just that. They try to run NPCs as if they were real, operating on real personalities, motives, etc.

Who do you think doesn't do this? (Other than you when you have your swordsmen popping out of walls without explanation.)

It is the difference between starting with what the villain wants to do to the party, for example cut them off before they reach the Duke's manor, then figuring out what steps that NPC needs to take in order to cut the party off, versus deciding that the NPC and his men just so up because it is dramatically appropriate.

So in a session not too long ago, I decided that a NPC I'd written up - Fori the Beardless - confronted the PCs. Because I thought it would be interesting. (And it was.)

How is this not part of a naturalistic world, bound by logic, with cause and effect operating? I mean, Fori arrived in the riverside village the PCs were in by boat. He had a connection to the relatively nearby Forgotten Temple Complex that one of the PCs was from. He even knew some things about that PCs (deceased) parents, including holding a grudge against them.

How does this violate logic, or cause-and-effect, or naturalism? In what way is this NPC not operating on the basis of a real personality?

Why would it be more naturalistic if, instead of first introducing Fori in the way I did, I introduced him as the (essentially passive) vizier of a Dwarven ruler in a (relatively passive) exposition-dump scene? I mean, this alternative is far more common in D&D modules (and in similarly-structured adventures for similar sorts of games) - but is it more naturalistic to only ever meet new people in essentially passive contexts? I don't see why!

 

[Bedrockgames]

Who do you think doesn't do this? (Other than you when you have your swordsmen popping out of walls without explanation.)

this happens all the time. Like I said, naturalism and sun aren’t even my preferred modes of play. But people are very often taking what is dramatic, what drives the pacing of play, what feels cool, exciting or fun over what feels naturalistic. Naturalism is a particular mood and logic, that isn’t going to work in every campaign.

 

[pemerton]

naturalism and sun aren’t even my preferred modes of play.

I don't know what "sun" means here.

But people are very often taking what is dramatic, what drives the pacing of play, what feels cool, exciting or fun over what feels naturalistic. Naturalism is a particular mood and logic, that isn’t going to work in every campaign.

I don't know what you mean by "naturalism" either, if it is meant to exclude interesting things. And if it doesn't, then I don't understand the contrast in your paragraph.

 

[Bedrockgames]

So in a session not too long ago, I decided that a NPC I'd written up - Fori the Beardless - confronted the PCs. Because I thought it would be interesting. (And it was.)

How is this not part of a naturalistic world, bound by logic, with cause and effect operating? I mean, Fori arrived in the riverside village the PCs were in by boat. He had a connection to the relatively nearby Forgotten Temple Complex that one of the PCs was from. He even knew some things about that PCs (deceased) parents, including holding a grudge against them.

How does this violate logic, or cause-and-effect, or naturalism? In what way is this NPC not operating on the basis of a real personality?

Why would it be more naturalistic if, instead of first introducing Fori in the way I did, I introduced him as the (essentially passive) vizier of a Dwarven ruler in a (relatively passive) exposition-dump scene? I mean, this alternative is far more common in D&D modules (and in similarly-structured adventures for similar sorts of games) - but is it more naturalistic to only ever meet new people in essentially passive contexts? I don't see why!

I don’t know how this confrontation emerged in your campaign. But that would be key to it being naturalistic. If the GM is engaging it in a naturalistic way, such an encounter would emerge naturally and wouldn’t be a foregone conclusion, and instead of starting with ‘this happens because it’s interesting’ you would start with what the NPC wants, why he is there, etc. to be clear there is nothing wrong with doing something because it is interesting. And it being interesting doesn’t preclude naturalism. But you will see if you look at discussions by sim and sandbox GMs that they don’t take decisions like this lightly and there is a lot of concern over when such an encounter would be deemed appropriate and when it might be deemed to artificial or convenient

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't know what "sun" means here.

That should say ‘sim’. It was autocorrect

I don't know what you mean by "naturalism" either, if it is meant to exclude interesting things. And if it doesn't, then I don't understand the contrast in your paragraph.

Naturalism just means it feels grounded, natural, more like the flow of real life. This is a topic that comes up a lot in sandbox discussions. This specific language might not be used, it isn’t a term of art. But concern over things being real world are discussed at length. And often center on things like how the GM ought to introduce encounters, NPCs and events. It is also a topic I would say is an active area of discussion. But it is one of the major reasons I don’t describe my approach as sun or even pure sandbox (I want encounters that are dramatic, interesting etc). Too much coincidence is seen as antithetical (though I think where the line is, is debatable). I lean more into genre than something that say feels like historical naturalism