GM fiat - an illustration

[Bedrockgames]

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.

Yeah but I think many people would take issue with this example. I may need to see it in play. But I can’t imagine this going down well in most groups. It just requires far too many perfect choices, executed flawlessly.

Also I think this wouldn’t rely on Gm fiat in most RPGs. Like I said there are a number of places where I would expect rolls to be made

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

the gaps are supposed to be plugged in by rulings and rules interpretations. That doesn’t mean the Gm just decides something occurs. Rulings are often about finding the best mechanical tool when there is doubt about something. Again, I would need to look up the 5E Alarm spell but certainly I might expect to see skills rolls or attribute rolls

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

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.

Alarm spell is fine. It is quite clear about how it functions, and its reasonable use is to block the only entrance to a space. When used sensibly, it cannot easily be overcome, and the sensible way is apparent to the players. But yes, how the spell is used matters. If you use it on an empty field where the enemy could approach from any direction, it doesn't do much. So how it is used actually matters. This seems to be the fact that bothers you for some reason. To me this is preferable to the effectiveness of the spell being purely random as seems to be the case in TB.

What I said would be bad practice, is for the GM to concoct after the spell is used an enemy that can easily overcome it, or other weakness to the position of the PCs. (So inventing a magic detecting and dispelling assassin or an undetected secret passage to the cam via which enemy enters after the PC has used the spell.)

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 we have examples of that in this thread. I think your preferred method of randomising magical defences denies the players the agency of choosing the method of deployment of such defences to matter.

I also alluded earlier Blades in The Dark being too random for skilled play, and this is very similar to what I said above. (Which is not a criticism of the system as such, as it is not intended for that, but it nevertheless means that randomness inhibits that type of agency.)

Then we touched upon social mechanics, and we had a long thread about them a while ago. In many of them random determination of reactions erodes the player agency over the behaviour of their character.

Have you asked anyone to post the rules for you? Or to explain them in detail?

Yes, several times.

If you're not sure about the rules, what makes you confident you understand them?

I am not at all confident about that, which is why I'd very much like someone to post the rules in question!

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.

Right. So this is what I see as the difference. In my method the setting details determine whether things go poorly (or at least affect the odds of it.) In yours the randomiser determines it, and the setting details merely provide the flavour for the potential complication.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yeah but I think many people would take issue with this example. I may need to see it in play. But I can’t imagine this going down well in most groups. It just requires far too many perfect choices, executed flawlessly.

Also I think this wouldn’t rely on Gm fiat in most RPGs. Like I said there are a number of places where I would expect rolls to be made

Well... "winged monkeys drop rocks on the party" bypasses the spell, assuming that the monkeys are 21' or more up.

Again... who determines exactly what creatures are in the encounter? Their disposition? The distance of the encounter?

All of those used to be determined by reaction rolls. I think there's a reason for that.

the gaps are supposed to be plugged in by rulings and rules interpretations. That doesn’t mean the Gm just decides something occurs. Rulings are often about finding the best mechanical tool when there is doubt about something. Again, I would need to look up the 5E Alarm spell but certainly I might expect to see skills rolls or attribute rolls

Sure, rulings will be needed. But I would expect that to be more a case of from time to time, not pretty much every time this or that spell is used.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think you misspelled 'GM'

No I didn't, but I certainly was surprised how in the social mechanics thread a while ago the people who usually cry about player agency the loudest were very strongly advocating for the GM ability to override the player's agency over their character via the social mechanics.

 

[pemerton]

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.

If I set out the following as a description - at a certain level of abstraction - of your approach to situation-based play, how close am I? What I'm trying to do here is condense and express the impression your posts have given me:

My impression begins with Baker's "layers", where he says that even if you don't use the moves of AW, you still have the conversation. A lot of the play that you describe seems to me to be in that general neighbourhood.

Your set-up seems to involve creating a cast of PC, whom the players get to define and play, and also NPCs, who have a "position" in the situation, and have goals/motivations, like "best interests" in In A Wicked Age or impulses in AW.

When the players declare actions for their PCs that involve talking to, or potentially upsetting or otherwise "moving" the NPCs, the GM decides how the NPCs react (just like a interaction with a NPC in AW if there is no leverage to trigger Seduce/Manipulate). This is the GM's sincere artistic contribution: the GM is portraying their NPCs just as the players are portraying their PCs.

When action involves "physicality", there is conflict resolution using dice or some similar procedure (which is how In A Wicked Age handles it too).

Once the situation becomes stable, because everyone is either dead/gone/defeated or else has achieved their best interests/resolved their impulse, the game is over. (This is how I have found In a Wicked Age plays out.) There is no open-ended, ongoing campaign.

There is no secrecy or illusion, if I've understood things correctly: the GM's portrayal of their NPCs is known and visible to the players (otherwise the GM would be expressing their vision); and the impulses/motivations/"best interests" that make up the situation are not secret (if they were, the players couldn't meaningfully engage the situation).

Anyway, that's my impression. I'm curious as to how accurate it is!

 

[soviet]

Right. So this is what I see as the difference. In my method the setting details determine whether things go poorly (or at least affect the odds of it.) In yours the randomiser determines it, and the setting details merely provide the flavour for the potential complication.

I don't think this is accurate though.

In one method the randomiser determines the outcome and the setting details provide the flavour or justification.

In your method you decide the outcome and the setting details provide the flavour or justification.

In neither case is there an objective reality or unavoidable logic that determines the outcome.

 

[pemerton]

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.

OK?

@Manbearcat's point, from which my post followed, was about the whether a situation is gameable. If consequences are unknowable, and hence calculations/reasoning correspondingly impossible, that reduces gameability.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Sure, rulings will be needed. But I would expect that to be more a case of from time to time, not pretty much every time this or that spell is used.

different people have different expectations here. Not saying you are wrong to feel this way. But I like when D&D has spells and rules much more open to interpretation

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't think this is accurate though.

In one method the randomiser determines the outcome and the setting details provide the flavour or justification.

In your method you decide the outcome and the setting details provide the flavour or justification.

In neither case is there an objective reality or unavoidable logic that determines the outcome.

If one would for some reason want to intentionally obfuscate how we arrive at the outcome, I guess one could torture it thusly.

If I there are three boxes, and unbeknownst to you I put a cookie in one of them, and then you decide to open one of the boxes, did I decide whether you find a cookie?