GM fiat - an illustration

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes, because it is the situation where it makes sense to use the spell.


Well, it is a bloody useless spell to cast in such situations, so why would you?

But here again we see how with the D&D approach the fiction actually matters. You actually need to think how and where you utilise the spell. This to me is a good thing.

I think you have a point here. What ends up happening though is, you take D&D, a game fundamentally designed to handle the sorts of fairly stereotyped situations constituting dungeon play, and you try to extrapolate it out to any situation. It doesn't hold up well at all.

Around the mid-80s people had grown frustrated. Procedure focused games suck a lot of the life out of character and story. Everything is focused on time, space, gear, etc. Those are interesting up to a point, but if they are the primary focus, then characters and personalities and narrative remain as secondary elements. The focus has always to be on physical space and such primarily. And these games must necessarily grind along on detail.

And when this sort of game 'breaks free' of those constraints? It becomes incredibly hard to make it work. This is exactly why such games always fall down in high level play. When the characters have exceeded all mundane constraints, there's nothing left, the game is out of gas and you have basically pure Calvin Ball. Yes, it will now focus on narrative and character, but without any elements of being a game anymore.

We wanted heroic stories of derring-do, or epic struggle, tragedy and triumph. What we got was 10' squares, counting gold pieces, and deciding if Alarm would work here. Processes that failed entirely when moved out of the dungeon.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

And that’s what’s being suggested as a way to alleviate the issue, when folks see it as such.

Tables and dice rolls and the like help remove the matrix of GM fiat that would otherwise determine nearly the entirety of the situation, as well as the resolution.

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.

Potentially yes. But knowable how? Is it hinted at by the GM at some point? Is a skill check of some kind used? Is the GM obligated to share these details about this sect? What prompts the players to wonder about such things? How secretive is the sect? Would their characters already know about the sect or not?

How are all these things determined?

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?

No. That’s not how agency works. Agency is not the guarantee of success, it is existence of the possibility for success. I’m free as a player of basketball to take a shot from beyond the 3-point line. I may miss the shot… it’s farther than a 2-pointer, and that’s the risk I’m taking. That’s me as a player exercising agency.

Typically in RPGs, dice or some other randomizer are used to determine the outcome of skill checks such as that. Understanding these things is the key to player agency.

Jack's agency is up to Jack, not a GM.

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.

I think you’re off here. You say these world building details are available to find out before hand, right? I'm guessing that would most likely happen through the standard resolution system of play, right? So the DM would consider if it was uncertain.

So, he can decide it's certain that the PCs know of this sect. This will then inform how they handle their long rest, especially if they have reason to believe one or more of these assassins is on their tail.

He can decide they don't know at all... it's a super secret sect and there's no common knowledge of their existence. The GM denies the knowledge. This is a world building detail that contributes to the camp situation that the PCs cannot act on prior.

Or he can call for a roll of some sort. Hopefully involving a sensible DC and choosing to share the necessary information based on the result.

Now... whatever prompts the above in D&D... one of the players is worried about being attacked at camp, or worried about the amount of enemies the PCs are making, and the likelihood that someone may hire someone to deal with them... the player says something like this to the DM, and the DM calls for a roll.

Why can't this also happen in a game where this information is not all determined prior to play? I haven't played Torchbearer 2, but I have read it, and I've played Mouse Guard, which uses the same core system... and I'm reasonably sure that it can.

 

[Joanna Geist]

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.

Usage is meaning.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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?

Again, I think it is very easy to pin a lot on one thing a person says. And people are happy to answer questions, until it seems like an interrogation with the aim of simply disproving a play style (which is how this often feels). It isn't just about making up what seems to make the most sense. Though that is part of it. But if we are talking about people playing styles like living world sandbox or something, that is just one element of trying to bring an entire world to life for the players

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Potentially yes. But knowable how? Is it hinted at by the GM at some point? Is a skill check of some kind used? Is the GM obligated to share these details about this sect? What prompts the players to wonder about such things? How secretive is the sect? Would their characters already know about the sect or not?

How are all these things determined?

How secretive the sect is would be determined by the GM. Whether the PCs already know about it would be determined by the intersection of the established setting background and the PCs personal background, perhaps taking account some mechanical thing such as skill choice. Even a roll might be involved, which should make you happy! But the thing is, this is an established thing about the setting. Depending on the choices the PCs make on their adventures they might have already stumbled upon it.

No. That’s not how agency works. Agency is not the guarantee of success, it is existence of the possibility for success. I’m free as a player of basketball to take a shot from beyond the 3-point line. I may miss the shot… it’s farther than a 2-pointer, and that’s the risk I’m taking. That’s me as a player exercising agency.

Typically in RPGs, dice or some other randomizer are used to determine the outcome of skill checks such as that. Understanding these things is the key to player agency.

Jack's agency is up to Jack, not a GM.

Yeah, I don't think we agree. The GM saying no for valid reasons is no more infringement on your agency than the dice saying no is. Ultimately the situation is the same. Like if there are six boxes, one of them containing the MacGuffin, and the GM has predetermined it is in box four and you declare your PC looks in box five, and the GM tells the MacGuffin is not there, then you think the GM infringed upon your agency? But if instead of predetermining the location, the GM lets you roll d6 every time you open the box and on six you find the MacGuffin and you roll two when you open the box, your agency was on infringed? Like what?

The end result is the same. It is just that in the first scenario it is at least possible to foreshadow the location of the Macguffin.

I think you’re off here. You say these world building details are available to find out before hand, right? I'm guessing that would most likely happen through the standard resolution system of play, right? So the DM would consider if it was uncertain.

So, he can decide it's certain that the PCs know of this sect. This will then inform how they handle their long rest, especially if they have reason to believe one or more of these assassins is on their tail.

He can decide they don't know at all... it's a super secret sect and there's no common knowledge of their existence. The GM denies the knowledge. This is a world building detail that contributes to the camp situation that the PCs cannot act on prior.

Or he can call for a roll of some sort. Hopefully involving a sensible DC and choosing to share the necessary information based on the result.

Now... whatever prompts the above in D&D... one of the players is worried about being attacked at camp, or worried about the amount of enemies the PCs are making, and the likelihood that someone may hire someone to deal with them... the player says something like this to the DM, and the DM calls for a roll.

Why can't this also happen in a game where this information is not all determined prior to play? I haven't played Torchbearer 2, but I have read it, and I've played Mouse Guard, which uses the same core system... and I'm reasonably sure that it can.

That could happen. What could not happen in such paradigm however, is the PCs deciding to visit the city of Nyx seven sessions ago, and whilst pursuing other matters stuble on the secrets of the assassin cult, because that information didn't exist then.

Furthermore, I am not sure how such information would really even matter execpt as flavour in this fiction after system. Like sure because this time the camp event roll said you were ambushed despite your warding spell the post hoc justification migh be that the ambusher was an Assassin of Nyx, who can bypass such magics. But what do you do with this information is such a system? Next time the dice roll low and you get ambushed, there will be some other post hoc justfications which again is just mostly flavour.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That could be extrapolated from the size and type of the city, but it also probably is not important as there are likely to be enough.


Presumably the PCs know what sort of warehouse they need depends on what their plan is, thus they search for one that is suitable or can be made so. For example if their plan requires only one entrance they find one with just one entrance or block other entrances. Or again, if they don't, and leave other entrances open, then that matters, because the fiction matters and the choices matter!

Like I get that not everyone cares for that level of detail. Perhaps you just want to have trap setting roll, and what the characters actually exactly do is mere flavour. But I think it is pretty clear that in doing it that way something rather significant is also lost.

And it is fine to do some simplifications in some areas of the game, those you don't want to spend that much time of thought on. But if you did it on all areas, then that would become a very dull game, at least to me.


Is this something that is actually happened in game? Like perhaps just go read the book in a reading hall with a few metres of visibility and save the spell?



I mean it is pretty useless. The alarm covers just a few metres. If the potential enemy can come from any direction, then that is not great. But I'm not against randomising some things. If you cover a tiny area we certainly can randomise whether the enemy happens to come from that direction unless there is some particularly compelling reason for assuming a specific direction. What I don't want to randomise is what the whole situation. Like if the PCs take steps to secure a place where the spell actually blocks the only entrance rather than just plopping it in middle of the empty field and hoping for the best I want it to matter. I want the situation and choices of the PCs to matter.

I think this allows us to understand the specific differences here and so many people are not making the transition to understanding Narrativist play.

So, let's imagine a Blades in the Dark version of this warehouse scenario. The job is an ambush and the players decide, or the larger situation dictates, a warehouse location. We play out info gathering, the crew spy guy rolls a check on his plan to scout the perfect space. He's successful. Thus starting position is checked with a bonus. The actual layout may be described in detail, maybe with the GM asking the players to explain what they wanted. Either way, when the bad guys come, probably the crew has the jump on them.

Now, the fictional details of the above matter to the story, they're not trivial, and may well constrain following options, you can't exit a back door that you've declared doesn't exist! But some things might be established in response to narrative, like that there's a catwalk up in the shadows above the warehouse floor, this is where the spider is lurking! This is the fictional justification as to why he's got superior position. Yet if the bad guy is described as whipping out a rocket launcher and blasting the cable supporting the catwalk, well that PC has a problem! Mechanically this all revolves around the type of threat, maybe a devil's bargain, etc. The fiction still governed what happens.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think this allows us to understand the specific differences here and so many people are not making the transition to understanding Narrativist play.

So, let's imagine a Blades in the Dark version of this warehouse scenario. The job is an ambush and the players decide, or the larger situation dictates, a warehouse location. We play out info gathering, the crew spy guy rolls a check on his plan to scout the perfect space. He's successful. Thus starting position is checked with a bonus. The actual layout may be described in detail, maybe with the GM asking the players to explain what they wanted. Either way, when the bad guys come, probably the crew has the jump on them.

Now, the fictional details of the above matter to the story, they're not trivial, and may well constrain following options, you can't exit a back door that you've declared doesn't exist! But some things might be established in response to narrative, like that there's a catwalk up in the shadows above the warehouse floor, this is where the spider is lurking! This is the fictional justification as to why he's got superior position. Yet if the bad guy is described as whipping out a rocket launcher and blasting the cable supporting the catwalk, well that PC has a problem! Mechanically this all revolves around the type of threat, maybe a devil's bargain, etc. The fiction still governed what happens.

So I have actually played Blades quite a bit, and fiction obviously matters in that game too. But I have to say that myth being malleable and cause and effect somewhat optional means that sometimes it rather feels that whether you're doing things "smartly" doesn't really matter. Like when the dice roll badly, you will get screwed, and the GM can always come up with some justification for it. So the flavour of hurt may be affected by your choices, but the pain itself is random.

Like I get it, it is completely different type of game, and I'm fine with it. But you really cannot do "skilled play" or anything of the sort with it, things are just too bloody random and fluid.

 

[hawkeyefan]

How secretive the sect is would be determined by the GM. Whether the PCs already know about it would be determined by the intersection of the established setting background and the PCs personal background, perhaps taking account some mechanical thing such as skill choice. Even a roll might be involved, which should make you happy! But the thing is, this is an established thing about the setting. Depending on the choices the PCs make on their adventures they might have already stumbled upon it.

Sure! I’ve said this already. But how much of all that is determined in a way other than GM decides? Perhaps player choices like class and/or background. Perhaps skill choice. Maybe a roll is involved? Yes, that’s great!

What does the roll tell us? Who decides that? What’s the DC for the roll?

I’m not saying any of this is bad in and of itself. I’m saying that I think a GM should be aware of how much input their decision making has on a given situation, and should work to make sure there’s more at play than just their decision making.

If you agree with that… then I’m not sure what you’re arguing.

Yeah, I don't think we agree. The GM saying no for valid reasons is no more infringement on your agency than the dice saying no is. Ultimately the situation is the same. Like if there are six boxes, one of them containing the MacGuffin, and the GM has predetermined it is in box four and you declare your PC looks in box five, and the GM tells the MacGuffin is not there, then you think the GM infringed upon your agency? But if instead of predetermining the location, the GM lets you roll d6 every time you open the box and on six you find the MacGuffin and you roll two when you open the box, your agency was on infringed? Like what?

The end result is the same. It is just that in the first scenario it is at least possible to foreshadow the location of the Macguffin.

That’s because your examples above aren’t accurately comparing what we are talking about.

We’re talking a process where the player has the ability to potentially achieve his goal, and has some sense of his chances to do so being compared with a process where someone else just decides the outcome.

In your example above, imagine that no matter what box the player picked, the GM just said “that box is empty”. This allows for no player agency.

That could happen. What could not happen in such paradigm however, is the PCs deciding to visit the city of Nyx seven sessions ago, and whilst pursuing other matters stuble on the secrets of the assassin cult, because that information didn't exist then.

What? Why could that not happen?

Furthermore, I am not sure how such information would really even matter execpt as flavour in this fiction after system. Like sure because this time the camp event roll said you were ambushed despite your warding spell the post hoc justification migh be that the ambusher was an Assassin of Nyx, who can bypass such magics. But what do you do with this information is such a system? Next time the dice roll low and you get ambushed, there will be some other post hoc justfications which again is just mostly flavour.

Why would the GM not draw on established information? Just because not everything is established prior to play does not mean that some things are not. Nor does it meant that things established once play starts can’t be used.

In some games, you simply wouldn’t use some unknown thing in this manner.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sure! I’ve said this already. But how much of all that is determined in a way other than GM decides? Perhaps player choices like class and/or background. Perhaps skill choice. Maybe a roll is involved? Yes, that’s great!

What does the roll tell us? Who decides that? What’s the DC for the roll?

I’m not saying any of this is bad in and of itself. I’m saying that I think a GM should be aware of how much input their decision making has on a given situation, and should work to make sure there’s more at play than just their decision making.

If you agree with that… then I’m not sure what you’re arguing.

I am arguing that the GM pre-establishing these facts do not infringe on player agency, at least not any more than your "roll for it" method would and probably less.

That’s because your examples above aren’t accurately comparing what we are talking about.

We’re talking a process where the player has the ability to potentially achieve his goal, and has some sense of his chances to do so being compared with a process where someone else just decides the outcome.

In your example above, imagine that no matter what box the player picked, the GM just said “that box is empty”. This allows for no player agency.

But no one has suggested such. What has been suggested that the interaction of the player choices and established myth is consulted for outcomes.

What? Why could that not happen?

I said why it couldn't. The whole existence of assassins of Nyx is only invented seven sessions later to explain the random result of the warding spell not protecting the PCs from an attack.

Why would the GM not draw on established information? Just because not everything is established prior to play does not mean that some things are not. Nor does it meant that things established once play starts can’t be used.

In some games, you simply wouldn’t use some unknown thing in this manner.

But what practical difference does it make in this randomised fiction after model? Like it does not matter if you take specific steps against specific foes in your camp, because we just randomise it anyway. Then bad results just means someone else attacks you.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Which is a strongly playstyle dependent claim.

I've long been a highly procedural, somewhat literalist¹ GM. In D&D, the encounter checks are once per [10min] turn unless instructed otherwise. This leaves the encounter clock essentially fixed a hh:00, hh:10, hh:20, hh:30, hh:40, and hh:50. given 8 hours, and that the casting is seldom on those 6 points an hour, a 1/60 chance that 1/48 of checks is ambiguous as to Alarm timing.
The methods of evading alarm are pretty straight forward: dimension door (or other form of teleport) being the most obvious to me - which requires a spell caster or one of only a handful of MM foes... Walking through walls also works; great way to give a party a portable hole.

Creatures in a D&D context is a not entirely clearly defined bit of jargon that includes everything in the Monster Manual in 5E, and anything created with the monster creation rules, and anything created with the PC rules. So, essentially, "Can it move? Yes, it's a creature; No, it still might be a creature."

So, in 5E, it's pretty cut and dried for the literalist proceduralist GM. Bypass the portal.

¹: Literalist as in "The rules say what the rules say, no matter the authorial intent."

It's germane to almost all understandings of fiat. Fundamentally, all decisions in fiction involve fiat at some point. The question really isn't "is it by fiat?" but "Whose fiat decision was it?" The rules designer? The setting designer? The module author? The GM? Some PC? Your PC?
We're basically giving a pass to the decisions external to the group, or which come from prior decisions being carried forward, and that's probably appropriate, but everything in the fiction is, at some level, someone deciding upon their own initiative and authority.

As I said to @Crimson Longinus , I think a lot of this definiteness does exist, in something like dungeon play. This is, in fact, the reason for such play! Dave placed the action within an environment where his wargame-style rules worked. One where questions of space, time, and basic dynamics could be answered fairly objectively. Questions could mostly be answered by reference to the map and key, creature stats, etc. Reasonable extrapolation covered some additional areas, and dice plus generally gamist rules and processes covered a lot of the rest.

But as soon as you move out into the larger world, these techniques begin to fail, and in pretty easily understood ways that have long since been fully explicated and need not be rehashed. Now, obviously such failures don't preclude play, often quite successful play. They do however lead to the idea that good GMing is some sort of high level skill.

To go back to your 5e comment. Sure, it's very cut and dried when you have a complete map and key, Alarm either does or does not preclude approach to the party, but even then I am a bit skeptical. Is the local kobold chief Globkuz the Dim, or Tucker? Doesn't the later just build a big smokey fire and smoke out the PCs? Or maybe there's ventilation, did you map out the vent shafts and describe them? Stuff falls apart really fast as soon as you start to dig a tiny bit beneath the surface!