GM fiat - an illustration

[Bedrockgames]

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

I don’t think this at all. I do think there are different degrees of emphasis on things like setting logic (and the GM needs to balance out for themselves how important setting logic is against other considerations). For some GMs it is the main consideration

I am happy defend whatever. But some of your responses feel like lawyerly attacks on word choice rather than an honest effort to understand a different style or approach (for some reason it seems extremely important to you to disprove the assumptions around this style of play: and I don’t feel the opposite. I think what you do is legitimate and achieves for you what you say it does. I could take the posture you do and try to interrogate it aggressively but that wouldn’t actually reveal anything

 

[thefutilist]

You've posted about this before, and it's a very interesting perspective because it's coming at these discussions from a different set of play experiences than many other posters.

Eg not many posters are working out what they find as contrasting between (eg) a certain sort of approach to Burning Wheel and a certain sort of approach to Sorcerer.

But conflict resolution does generate some demands on the "myth" that are different from the demands imposed by (say) classic D&D or CoC map-and-key play. For instance, if there is to be room for the resolution of the conflict tells us that (say) the assassin sent by Jackson ends up admiring the PCs more than Jackson, and so lets them go (a reasonably well-known "honourable assassin" trope), then the myth can't be utterly total about what sorts of feelings Jackson's assassin might have.

Or if there is to be room for the resolution of the conflict to tell us that Jackson's assassin falls for the PCs' warehouse gambit, then the myth can't already establish, in step-by-step detail, the way that the assassin enters the warehouse.

There has to be sufficient "looseness" of the myth to enable the upshot of the resolved conflict to be incorporated into it.

The short answer is, yeah totally agree with you, there needs to be sufficient no-myth space. Or backstory can't lead to totally deterministic outcomes all the time. Not sure I would frame it that way though but then we're getting into the aesthetics of resolution systems.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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!

Real life is like that too. You can't always predict what will happen, even if what actually happens, improbable or not, could logically follow from events.

 

[Manbearcat]

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.

Ok, a little time here so I wanted to respond. My response is exclusively centered around Narrativism, not Gamist concerns. First, I really, really appreciate your lengthy, clarifying post.

I'm going to take the direct above and answer it. Then I'm going to grab your usage of RotJ and focus like a laser beam on one thing.

ON YOUR EXAMPLE (Attached below)

Here are my thoughts on the above. If the table time invested in the above is ancillary to premise, then I probably have no problem (but more on that in a moment). If this is either (a) color or (b) basically just setup for establishing the core elements of premise to be asked-and-answered later, then we're ok. However, I'm certainly left wondering why are we spending precious table time on conflict-neutral setup that is tantamount to exposition? If the players have no real say, if the system has no real say nor teeth...then the GM has all the say. If the GM has all the say, "play" ceases to be play and that table time effectively becomes exposition. If it is presented as actual play, then bare minimum we're in Ouija territory where the GM has unilateral control of the planchette and our hands on the planchette are faux volition.

Now if this table time on this content is presented as more than mere exposition/ancillary set-up and is central to premise? We're transitioning into GM Storytime where GM Force generates, regulates, and resolves premise via (i) majority control over framing + (ii) unilateral control over stakes (especially unknown stakes) + (iii) resolution of competing motivations and attendant actions. GM Storytime is anathema to Narrativism. Narrativism as an agenda was a direct response to dissatisfaction with GM Storytime.

My main question and position regarding the above example is why are we spending actual table time and employing the game's situation-state resolving play loop (which entails a form of action negation/block) to establish setup?

It should just be handled as situation-framing and then we move to "the action."

GM: "Despite your best efforts <excerpt of the efforts on Endor and its unfortunate fallout>..."

---

ADDRESSING PREMISE: RETURN OF THE JEDI

I want to take your RotJ example and focus on and explore one component.

Luke is a PC. Luke wants to:

* redeem his father by subverting The Emperor's seduction of Anakin Skywalker to The Dark Side...or

* destroy both his father, Vader, and The Emperor, if he must.

Vader is a PC. Vader wants to (in order):

* seduce Luke to The Dark Side so they can destroy The Emperor and rule the galaxy as father and son...or

* seduce Luke to The Dark Side for his master, The Empereror...or

* if his hand is forced, realize his master's skepticism and fulfill his bidding by destroying Luke.

* realize Luke's steadfast belief in him, allowing his son to "save" him, by destroying The Emperor's grip upon Vader.

The Emperor is the GM. The Emperor wants to:

* seduce Luke to The Dark Side so he can replace Luke's father as his new, and potentially more powerful, apprentice...or

* impose his will upon Vader and force him to destroy Luke, "completing his training"...or

* destroy Luke himself if Vader is incapable.

In the story, we know which of the above are realized. And we know the fallout.

Luke gets what he wants but at great cost (lives lost in The Emperor's trap and his father materially perishing).

The least likely outcome occurs with Vader also getting what he wants, but he pays for it with what is left of his life.

The Emperor does not get what he wants.

Now if we are exclusively resolving these colliding motivations and stakes, there are intense questions about how this is done.

1) Who gets to frame the scene elements and any default stakes already lost?

2) How are the inherent stakes of the scene decided?

3) How are the colliding, intrapersonal and interpersonal, motivations resolved?

4) How is the secondary fallout decided and resolved?

If the GM has unilateral (or nearly so via the overriding consequential impact of their mediation) authority over 1 and 3? I don't see how that can transcend GM Storytime into Narrativist territory as the only person giving real expression to addressing premise is the GM. Even if either players or system have some level of input on 4, that input is basically reduced to mere color as the matters central to play have already been decided (by the GM). If the players have some or total level of input on 2, they are still suddenly sidelined in settling the seminal, concrete matters of play (which is 3). I don't see how there is any recourse in evaluating the experiential quality of actual play and the signature impact of actual play; the players have been de-protagonized.

I can see exactly how this scene would materialize in Dogs in the Vineyard and it would be absolutely awesome. The breakdown of authority distribution on 1-4 would be:

1) GM

2) GM, Players

3) GM, Players, System

4) Players, System

Formatting that 3, it would go like this:

* Luke's player and Vader's player are in a Just Talking conflict > Vader's player escalates to Lightsaber Duel (where the Fallout is mortal) conflict > Despite Vader's escalation giving strategic advantage, Luke's player develops a significant advantage in the conflict-scape (dice pool and their deployment of it) > Luke's player feels (but isn't sure) that Vader's player will not "fold"...the Fallout that Vader will take will be mortal...Luke will not redeem his father... > Luke's player "folds" despite that decisive advantage, putting himself at the mercy of The Emperor.

* Luke's player severely outgunned by The Emperor in a Use the Force conflict (also mortal Fallout) is going to take lethal Fallout > Vader intervenes on his son's behalf, jumping into the conflict before Luke's lethal Fallout emerges, taking lethal Fallout himself but ending The Emperor's threat to Luke and The Dark Side's grip.

Effing...awesome...play. Awesome, authentic experience of play where the seminal matters are an expression of the will of the participants and the system mediating those colliding motivations and rendering fallout.

Reformatting the above conception of 3 to "GM decides (or even GM mostly decides due to their significantly outsized mediating role in resolution)" turns all the qualities of the experience of actual play, the actual contribution to the matters of resolving premise (the collision of those motivations, what they're willing to risk for them, what they're willing to give up for them), and expression on their head. The expression, the shape, the driving force of play suddenly becomes a "one man show" or near enough to it that it doesn't much matter.

---

Hopefully this clarifies and provides some context and understanding for the (it seems) daylight between us!

EDIT: Attached snip of the example I'm referring to.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.)

It's more that I feel some GMs not only prioritize narrative and/or challenge over setting logic and fidelity all or nearly all the time, they also seem to feel that not doing so is some kind of fault.

I care about those things too. I just always want the world to "make sense" as my wife says, and be internally consistent, and IMO mechanics should focus on modeling things and events in that world in a logically consistent way. Ideally for me, that's pretty much all they would focus on, modeling the fiction of what happens in the world with which the PCs interact. That goal will never be 100% achieved, and I definitely have to compromise on it sometimes, but it's what I strive for. That is what I strive for.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It can't be a railroad since players are not forced to have their PCs do anything. A railroad is when the players have their PCs forced down a rail no matter what they decide to have their PCs do. Hell, it's not even linear, so it's not even remotely close to being a railroad.

I believe why @pemerton calls this a railroad is because you’ve seemingly decided ahead of time that this NPC is important, rather than letting that be decided by the players during play. It implies that there is some predetermined element to the NPC that makes them important.

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

Sure. But ultimately, the way they are made is “GM decides”.

Which is fine, in and of itself. But the more elements that are GM decides that feed into a situation and how it may be resolved during play, the more impact that potentially has on player agency.

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.

Unexamined? Isn’t that largely what this discussion is about?

I don’t think this at all. I do think there are different degrees of emphasis on things like setting logic (and the GM needs to balance out for themselves how important setting logic is against other considerations). For some GMs it is the main consideration

I am happy defend whatever. But some of your responses feel like lawyerly attacks on word choice rather than an honest effort to understand a different style or approach (for some reason it seems extremely important to you to disprove the assumptions around this style of play: and I don’t feel the opposite. I think what you do is legitimate and achieves for you what you say it does. I could take the posture you do and try to interrogate it aggressively but that wouldn’t actually reveal anything

I think at times clarification is needed, and that’s the reason for the questions.

Because it seems that what folks are saying is “I make it up based on what seems to me to make the most sense” but they phrase it in different ways that are less clear.

And if the process is indeed “I make it up based on what seems to me to make the most sense” how does that process allow for things that are unlikely to occur?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I believe why @pemerton calls this a railroad is because you’ve seemingly decided ahead of time that this NPC is important, rather than letting that be decided by the players during play. It implies that there is some predetermined element to the NPC that makes them important.



Sure. But ultimately, the way they are made is “GM decides”.

Which is fine, in and of itself. But the more elements that are GM decides that feed into a situation and how it may be resolved during play, the more impact that potentially has on player agency.



Unexamined? Isn’t that largely what this discussion is about?



I think at times clarification is needed, and that’s the reason for the questions.

Because it seems that what folks are saying is “I make it up based on what seems to me to make the most sense” but they phrase it in different ways that are less clear.

And if the process is indeed “I make it up based on what seems to me to make the most sense” how does that process allow for things that are unlikely to occur?

Because you leaven that impulse with other ways to make decisions. I use a fair number of tables for this purpose. Everything on the table is still logically consistent, but it's not all equally plausible.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sure. But ultimately, the way they are made is “GM decides”.

Which is fine, in and of itself. But the more elements that are GM decides that feed into a situation and how it may be resolved during play, the more impact that potentially has on player agency.

But again, that is not so simple. Some sort of GM decisions might indeed erode player agency, whits others could empower it. Like I have been talking about information that is at least potentially knowable to, and actionable by the players. "There exist this specific assassin sect with an ability gained via a defined method that allows them to walk through magical defences without trigging them" is that. "The dice say no" really isn't.

For some reason you seem to be perfectly fine with the dice saying no, yet have an issue with the GM saying no to the exact same thing. In either case, the player action declaration was nullified, so their agency was eroded just the same, right? It is just that if the GM has coherent reasons for their no, then those can become leverageable by the players, thus allowing an avenue of agency, in a way that cannot happen with mere randomness.

Unexamined? Isn’t that largely what this discussion is about?

Some of us are trying, yes.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I just do not see this as a major issue. A lot of it can be extrapolated from the initial situation and the established setting. And sure, there is not one "objectively" correct answer, but it is good enough.

Exactly there's no objective answer, all of these myriad details are simply established at the whim of the GM in this case. I agree it's good enough, maybe even great, but some sort of 'simulation' or model of a world with any independent character, any compelling reason to be X, or Y, is not there. What is there are questions about the quality of play in respect of the agenda for play. We are now RIGHT AT EDWARDS, squarely and unequivocally. The questions to be asked and answered are exactly those he stated almost 25 years ago!

I understand that you probably disagree with his answers to those questions, that's another question entirely. But when you simply write off the CENTRAL ELEMENTS of discussion as unimportant then I have to conclude there's some kind of failure of understanding somewhere here

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Exactly there's no objective answer, all of these myriad details are simply established at the whim of the GM in this case. I agree it's good enough, maybe even great, but some sort of 'simulation' or model of a world with any independent character, any compelling reason to be X, or Y, is not there. What is there are questions about the quality of play in respect of the agenda for play. We are now RIGHT AT EDWARDS, squarely and unequivocally. The questions to be asked and answered are exactly those he stated almost 25 years ago!

I understand that you probably disagree with his answers to those questions, that's another question entirely. But when you simply write off the CENTRAL ELEMENTS of discussion as unimportant then I have to conclude there's some kind of failure of understanding somewhere here

What did I write off as unimportant? To me it seems the it is the people who lump all GM decision making into "GM whim" or "GM fiat" like it all was the same and it wouldn't matter how and when the decisions are made, who are writing off central elements as unimportant.