GM fiat - an illustration

[thefutilist]

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:

That sounds spot on as my kind of 'default' approach to play. You're describing it how I would (and do) describe it if I'm giving an overview.

 

[soviet]

This one I am unclear on. I am fine with randomness. But I don't see how if a player chooses a door and you determine what is behind it randomly that protects your agency. You aren't really making a meaningful choice, it is just down to the dice, no matter which door you choose, it is a random result. Perhaps I misunderstand the example though

OK, in the stripped down example I provided I think you're right. In principle randomised outcomes such as skill checks do preserve agency because the player knows and can manipulate the odds of success, but you're right here it's just a coin flip.

 

[soviet]

This is why I do something I call 'pinning it down'. If you determine things before hand for places you haven't yet mapped, whether through randomness or simply deciding, it allows you to create a solid sense of a world around the players that is real (i.e. they can prod at it and look for clues like you suggest here)

This might sound crazy but sometimes in MERP I do a pre-random encounter roll - that is to say, what was here before? So if the answer is Trolls, there might be smashed up trees, or a half-eaten corpse, or dropped loot, etc. It wouldn't morph into a troll encounter itself unless the players sought after one by rushing after them, etc. (Or did something stupid like stopping for a barbecue)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

For my part, I had a similar preference to yours for a while, but 19 years intense experience of RM play persuaded me that those techniques aren't all they're cracked up to be.

Rolemaster certainly can traumatise people to alter their gaming preferences. It is was actually Rolemaster which made me finally appreciate some of the more gamist design elements such as the D&D-style hit points.

 

[bloodtide]

What makes a NPC important? If the GM decides in advance, to me that seems like a railroad. If they decide after the event, and then add details, how is the GM in that case extrapolating along in-fiction causal pathways?

Are you really saying that having a NPC is important is railroading? How?

. 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.

Sounds like my game.

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).

At least 50% of my game is full of Randomness.

Right. This is salient difference. But this also means that in high myth game the GM is limited by that established myth, and that the players can at least in theory learn that myth and use it for their advantage.

I wonder what is this "Myth"? How can players know it?

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!

I consider this a Star Feature of my game. So many games and so many DMs just stick to the same small limited pool of ideas to pick from. Like the vast majority of modern fiction.

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.

So only the players can say an NPC is important? Why? Just more DM hate?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I wonder what is this "Myth"? How can players know it?

It's just the fancy word for the fiction, fluff, of the world, be it large scale or small. "Bolg the brave, former orc adventurer, is the inkeeper at the Dancing Owlbear" or "The People of the city of Nür worship the dark deity Xuul" or "There is a secret passage from the abandoned mill to the wizard Ziggums Tower" etc. Usually the players learn of it as their characters come to know it.

 

[pemerton]

Rolemaster certainly can traumatise people to alter their gaming preferences. It is was actually Rolemaster which made me finally appreciate some of the more gamist design elements such as the D&D-style hit points.

I wouldn't say that RM traumatised me. I GMed it for 19 years, and we had some amazing terrific play and compelling experiences. But it also has all the problems that @AbdulAlhazred describes. I got better at working with them, and around them, as the years went on; but once I worked out that there was an approach to RPGing which would provide just as much richness, verisimilitude and fidelity without needing the workarounds, I embraced it.

As far as D&D hit points are concerned, I've got no special love for them. What worked for me in 4e D&D combat was that most attacks delivered other consequences, which helped establish a reasonably visceral sense of what is going on (eg you've been pushed over or you've been blasted by a gout of flame).

 

[zakael19]

So only the players can say an NPC is important? Why? Just more DM hate?

If the player's dont know/dont care about that NPC, but you determine they're "important" - it's inserting plot/fiat.

If the players create an NPC with you / decide somebody is important, you can now do stuff to them that the players will naturally react to (or prove they don't really care that much after all, which is also interesting).

The running joke in most conventional RPGs is that the NPCs people are the most fond of are the joke characters, the random shopkeepers, the people who the DM hasn't pre-ascribed importance to but the players latch on to.

 

[pemerton]

But you really cannot do "skilled play" or anything of the sort with it, things are just too bloody random and fluid.

I've never played BitD. But I think you'll find there are posters here for whom your claim that it cannot do skill play constitutes fighting words!

 

[soviet]

Rolemaster is great, and does what it's designed to do really well.

It doesn't do well the things it's not designed to do, and for sure trying to push it into spaces like addressing premise would be very difficult.