GM fiat - an illustration

[FrogReaver]

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

Yep. For most GM decisions there tends to be a few potentially conflicting principles at play. It’s the interplay and shifting focus between them where most of the work happens. There’s simply not one overarching principle to rule them all.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

First, I’m not saying it must. I’m saying it may. If you don’t think it may, then we are definitely in disagreement.

Second, I’m not saying that roll for it is the answer to everything. It’s not either/or. It’s about how these different methods interact.

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

No, people have advocated for GM decides as a sole resolution being perfectly fine.

And although that may be true if everyone is okay with it, it absolutely can impact player agency.

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.
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.

Because the “fiction after” model you describe isn’t one used in any game I’m aware of?

The games in question will use existing fiction to explain the outcomes of rolls. So if the Order of Nyx hasn’t been introduced, then it won’t be used.

The GM doesn’t generally hinder the players with secret setting info that impacts their agency and then rationalize it as “plausible”. They simply work within the game’s constraints and expectations to find a plausible explanation.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

First, I’m not saying it must. I’m saying it may. If you don’t think it may, then we are definitely in disagreement.

Second, I’m not saying that roll for it is the answer to everything. It’s not either/or. It’s about how these different methods interact.

To me it seems you have a fundamental issue with GM making decisions. If that is not what you wish to communicate, then it might be helpful if you tried to better describe the specific kinds of GM decisions you have an issue with. Because of course some might be problematic, no one is denying that.

No, people have advocated for GM decides as a sole resolution being perfectly fine.

I don't think they have, given that basically every RPG have some mechanics that contain other elements than GM decision, usually a randomiser.

And although that may be true if everyone is okay with it, it absolutely can impact player agency.

A lot things can affect player agency. Too much randomness can affect player agency.

Because the “fiction after” model you describe isn’t one used in any game I’m aware of?

I think there have been several examples that amount to such. The facts about the situation being determined by the result rather than other way around. Now of course as no one still has quoted the actual relevant rules of TB, I cannot know how exactly it actually works in that game.

The games in question will use existing fiction to explain the outcomes of rolls. So if the Order of Nyx hasn’t been introduced, then it won’t be used.

Ok. Doesn't really matter though.

The GM doesn’t generally hinder the players with secret setting info that impacts their agency and then rationalize it as “plausible”. They simply work within the game’s constraints and expectations to find a plausible explanation.

Right. So the setting details do not matter for the resolution. The result is random, and then some fiction is invented to plausibly explain it. Just like I said.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think with character motivations and personalities it is most important to get things "right." Bad and inconsistent characterisation is at least to me far more jarring than most other minor inconsistencies. This is why I greatly dislike mechanics that compel characters, (PCs specifically) to react or act in certain way. We humans are far better judge of what reaction is appropriate in the situation than the dice.

Well, I'm going to take a look at this from the standpoint of 1000 Arrows. This is a PbtA in which the PCs are Kurusawa-esque participants in a great Sengoku Era drama of Japanese power politics/war. Situations are fraught with hard choices and compromise, or action with potentially terrible consequences.

My direct life experience informs me that you have very little idea how you will behave in these situations. Players decide what their characters want, who they are at some level, but the system of bonds/obsession and the Indulge/Defy moves that hook directly into it produce a reasonably verisimilitudinous set of outcomes. Sometimes a PC knows their own nature and has the will to carve their own path. Other times they don't. The whole point is asking the question, "who am I, and who will I become in this crucible of existence?" Isn't that core to all powerful drama?

Now, this is not to say all games should be doing this. But IMHO versatility and an ability to rise to the challenge and enjoy a variety of types of play is certainly a virtue.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Don't misunderstand what I mean by "obligated". No one is truly obligated to do anything. You aren't obligated to breathe - you can choose to hold your breath, at least until you lose consciousness.

Another example : At an official street fighter tournament, you aren't obligated to follow the rules. You can, as a human with free will, choose to cheat at any time. There will be consequences, of course, namely your disqualification and possible suspension. But this has no bearing on whether you're obligated.

Whether you're obligated to follow rules or not, failing to follow them is still cheating.

An obligation to follow the rules would just mean you were prevented from choosing to cheat.

Ever read Hobbes' Leviathan? He has a few things to say about this!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The whole point is asking the question, "who am I, and who will I become in this crucible of existence?" Isn't that core to all powerful drama?

Yes, definitely. Those are the most compelling sort of questions there can be in RPGs. And I very, very strongly want it to be the job of the players to answer such questions, not the dice.

 

[hawkeyefan]

To me it seems you have a fundamental issue with GM making decisions. If that is not what you wish to communicate, then it might be helpful if you tried to better describe the specific kinds of GM decisions you have an issue with. Because of course some might be problematic, no one is denying that.

No, I don't mind the GM making decisions. I don't like when they make all the decisions. Or when the decisions they make can easily override player choice. Like the Alarm spell in the OP.

I don't think they have, given that basically every RPG have some mechanics that contain other elements than GM decision, usually a randomiser.

Right, but in the case of the Alarm spell in the OP, there's not really a randomizer. There's a bit of player fiat in the form of a spell... but then that can easily be sidestepped by GM fiat.

People have definitely said this is fine. You yourself said it's not an issue. Then you also said that the Alarm spell is useless... which seems a bit contradictory to me, so I'm not exactly sure where you stand.

A lot things can affect player agency. Too much randomness can affect player agency.

Yes! And if you started a thread that showed an example of multiple rolls potentially overriding player agency, I'd be a silly goose to argue against that!

Do you have such an example?

I think there have been several examples that amount to such. The facts about the situation being determined by the result rather than other way around. Now of course as no one still has quoted the actual relevant rules of TB, I cannot know how exactly it actually works in that game.

Have you asked anyone to post the rules for you? Or to explain them in detail? If you're not sure about the rules, what makes you confident you understand them?

Ok. Doesn't really matter though.

Right. So the setting details do not matter for the resolution. The result is random, and then some fiction is invented to plausibly explain it. Just like I said.

It matters quite a bit. You're missing the part where only something already in play would be used. It's an existing element being used to create a complication. Same as it is in what you're describing.

The setting details matter for the fiction of the resolution. But whether or not things go well or poorly? Usually some kind of mechanics are engaged.

Same as D&D.

 

[soviet]

Yes, definitely. Those are the most compelling sort of questions there can be in RPGs. And I very, very strongly want it to be the job of the players to answer such questions, not the dice.

I think you misspelled 'GM'

 

[Bedrockgames]

Right, but in the case of the Alarm spell in the OP, there's not really a randomizer. There's a bit of player fiat in the form of a spell... but then that can easily be sidestepped by GM fiat.

This one got some pushback though. I would expect there to be some rolls on the assassin's side. And Frankly I think teh level of precision required to bypass it is astoundingly ridiculous and strains credulity. Maybe in a certain genre or mode it could work (I could see running something with a more heightened sense of reality and over the top characters where it would fit). But in a standard D&D game with the alarm spell, the degree of timing needed to count down rounds of a spell....that is getting into silly territory for me. Obviously there was some disagreement on it. But I think that makes the alarm spell a bad example as there is a lot that people would find wrong with the rulings if the GM just decides

 

[hawkeyefan]

This one got some pushback though. I would expect there to be some rolls on the assassin's side. And Frankly I think teh level of precision required to bypass it is astoundingly ridiculous and strains credulity. Maybe in a certain genre or mode it could work (I could see running something with a more heightened sense of reality and over the top characters where it would fit). But in a standard D&D game with the alarm spell, the degree of timing needed to count down rounds of a spell....that is getting into silly territory for me. Obviously there was some disagreement on it. But I think that makes the alarm spell a bad example as there is a lot that people would find wrong with the rulings if the GM just decides

I think it's a good example because not everyone agrees. It may not be a problem in any individual instance of play... but it shows how the mechanics leave these cracks that this stuff can slip through. Especially when compared to the equivalent from Torchbearer, which shows a complete process that doesn't rely on so much GM fiat to work as expected.

Now, think about how often 5e does this. It's not just with the alarm spell. There are similar cracks all over the game's design. And those cracks generally get plugged with GM Fiat.