GM fiat - an illustration

[Maxperson]

You've misunderstood me. My questions were directed to this thing that you said:

My question was: what benefits flow to the gamist players from doing those things, and what trade-offs are they making, and why does any of it matter, in circumstances where the GM is deciding what happens in the way that you described as being " enough to be able to simulate for the game whether or not the Jackson could or would send an assassin, and how to go about determining if or when the assassin finds the group".

What benefits flow from minimizing danger? Off the top of my head, minimizing danger!

 

[Maxperson]

Says who?

I suppose it depends on the game, but most games I've seen are like that. D&D certainly is.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I mean, if the NPC may not even be encountered, then why label him important?

In the same way I expect how certain people in our RL may be significant to us without us actually having met them - an author, a celebrity, a politician, a sportstar, a musician...etc

 

[Maxperson]

I mean, suppose as part of worldbuilding the GM has decided that all assassins from the Wyrd Guild do not trigger Alarm spells - perhaps, as part of their initiation, they are doused in a magical fluid - that would seem to obviously bear upon some of the stuff talked about in the OP.

And if the players don't know about these assassins, and hence find their PCs ambushed by them when they expected their Alarm spell to protect them, that might affect the sense of fairness of play.

No, it won't affect the sense of fairness of play. Information like that exists in the game world for them to find out. If they didn't find it out, then they won't know. What the players will know, though, is that if an assassin can get through an alarm spell, it's because of a fair reason and not because I just decided that I wanted something to get through their alarm.

It's the latter that would invoke a sense of unfairness if it happened, but they know that I don't do adversarial DMing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because he is. Just because something is important, doesn't mean that the players can't ignore it. I consider any NPC that isn't your basic farmer, guard, innkeeper, etc. to be one of import and influence. Those are the ones that are generally going to know more and be more competent.

More important in the setting is what I get from this, not necessarily important to the PCs (who can of course do what they want). Makes sense to me.

 

[Maxperson]

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!

That is not correct. A simulation or model doesn't have to be exceedingly complex and run by a computer to be a simulation or a model. They can be crude, complex or anything in-between. That includes what we DMs set up to simulate/model our settings.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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

Like I have said many times, nothing against Edward’s personally. He seems nice enough interpersonally and I find his online videos entertaining, even if I disagree. But this has long been a style of play he simply doesn’t seem to recognize as valid, despite tons of people enjoying it regularly

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Pre-establishment, if it's not adversarial in nature, won't impact agency. What happens after establishment, though, can absolutely affect agency. If the DM drives the players towards or away from pre-established thing, he's reducing or elimination agency.

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.

Just curious, but why can't the Order of Nyx be introduced there? Does introduction have to happen outside of a potential conflict?

 

[Maxperson]

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.

What was overridden in the OP? The alarm spell is used to minimize the chance of being surprised/ambushed, not eliminate it. Players don't get to cast the alarm spell with the expectation that it will always warn them in time, because that's not what the spell does.

So in the OP, the players chose to have a small chance that the alarm spell wouldn't work, and that choice was honored. As it would also have been honored had it worked.

 

[Maxperson]

I think you misspelled 'GM'

How? The DM doesn't decide those things.