GM fiat - an illustration

[KYRON45]

I don't think GM fiat reduces player agency if the GM is fair.

Right, but what's fair? Is it simply "per the rules"? Or is it something else?

If it's something else, how do we determine what's fair?

There is an X factor involved in being fair. You can't define it. You have to have an existing relationship with people to experience "fair".
If you trust your DM to do the right thing within the context of the game then "fair" means...some for you and some for me.
If you don't like or trust the people you are playing with, the whole experience is an uphill struggle.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Anyways. @hawkeyefan

You are being ganged up on a bit and that’s never fun. So I’m going to let others say their piece for now. I’ll chime back in later. Thanks for keeping your cool in the discussion.

No worries at all! I appreciate the sentiment, but I don’t mind engaging with multiple folks. I just might not reply to every comment unless it adds something new.

It didn’t sound like it did in your post? So you tell me. It sounded like you were originally only applying ‘having the illusion of cause and effect’ to one method.

No, each is made up… each has the illusion of cause and effect. One is determined ahead of time. The other is determined during play. But they both produce a result that is plausible and to which appear to have cause and effect within the game’s fiction.

 

[KYRON45]

I think in the case of the alarm spell, the example sounds ike a problem. I don't think the GM making things up is problem generally

I GM for the express reason that i CAN make things up. But i accept that I might be GMing wrong.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Also @hawkeyefan just to further illustrate my point and show this isn't about saying one way is better than the other. I am planning an adventure for my RBRB game. Normally this system is very traditional in terms of how things are resolved. But I want a session that feels like a two hour Shaw Brothers movie with a four act structure. And I have been talking to my players about ways of managing it because it does have a central mystery. It isn't a mystery adventure but there is a mysterious piece of information at its core. It is based on the movie Killer Darts

The premise is the players are orphans whose parents were killed by a master who wielded golden darts. They were too young to remember anything but have vague recollections of names and people. At the start of play, they are in the care of a kind master who found them and raised them. The story to play out is them discovering their parents killer (s) and developing the skill to contend with them.

I presented three approaches to the player: 1) A real mystery adventure that simply operates on an accelerated timeline, divided effectively into four quarters, 2) A randomized approach where acts are introduced randomly and where the central mystery is solved randomly (ie. anyone in adventure could have been their parent's killers), and 3) an approach like hill folk where they have power to narrate things through dialogue that shape the backstory (and the reveal wouldn't come till later but would likely arise and be shaped from something one of the player's decides)

All three of these seemed like fun to me. And they all had advantages and disadvantages in terms of agency.

But number 1 is a real mystery to be solved in the sense that there are facts to it established at the start that the players can navigate. That information informs everything. The players could try go guess on who killed their parents, act on that information and be right or wrong. The NPCs behavior, their dialogue, their reason for doing things are all informed by that backstory. It is something that 'really' happened and isn;t going to be modified during play. Again this isn't a better way to play. But the core experience is one where the players have a sense that there is real information they are trying to discover about what happened

 

[Maxperson]

What's silly is to look at two games that involve fictional characters solving fictional mysteries and saying that one is real and one is not.

A mystery is just a kind of puzzle to solve, and that's every bit as real in game as out. It's a mental exercise based on clues. That it's in an RPG doesn't matter.

 

[Bedrockgames]

No, the mechanics matter for sure. Obviously, people have preferences about which method they may prefer.

It’s the mistake of labeling one real and the other not.

Yes, they work differently. But that difference doesn’t make one real.

People are mistaking the illusion of cause and effect for actual cause and effect.

No one is saying your approach isn’t real. They are using real to describe an objective campaign state. It is the difference between a mystery film or book where the writer knew who did it and how from the start, and one where the writer made it up as they went. Both are mysteries and both can be just as entertaining. But the former is one the viewer or reader are invited to really solve (and they can genuinely guess based on the clues, being right or wrong) . That is the point people are making: there is an experience of really solving the mystery

 

[Crimson Longinus]

@hawkeyefan It makes just as much sense to say that there cannot be real decisions, real drama or real agency in an RPG because the events are fictional than to say there cannot be real mystery for the same reason. It is complete nonsense.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

While I don't think it is necessary for the players to know about the possibility, I do think bypassing it requires greater attention and consideration from the GM. I would be very reluctant to do so without good reason and without following procedures or rolls that feel fair

It always confounds me to hear people say things that indicate that the players are even part of the game when they're fundamentally ignorant of key information.

I mean, sure, we label activities as 'games' where no skill at all is involved, but they're generally considered pretty trivial. Either I have information, perhaps contingent on something I know I could pick as a move in the game, or else no skill, no CHOICE exists in any meaningful sense.

So, yes, knowledge is absolutely essential, fundamental.

 

[Bedrockgames]

ew.



No, each is made up… each has the illusion of cause and effect. One is determined ahead of time. The other is determined during play. But they both produce a result that is plausible and to which appear to have cause and effect within the game’s fiction.

yes but only one can truly be predicted as an informed guess or logically figured out. The other is subject to the procedures and not yet determined (so you can’t figure it out for real based on the evidence). Again this isn’t saying anything good or bad about the style. It is just there is a clear and important distinction between them when it comes to making meaningful choices

 

[Bedrockgames]

It always confounds me to hear people say things that indicate that the players are even part of the game when they're fundamentally ignorant of key information.

I mean, sure, we label activities as 'games' where no skill at all is involved, but they're generally considered pretty trivial. Either I have information, perhaps contingent on something I know I could pick as a move in the game, or else no skill, no CHOICE exists in any meaningful sense.

So, yes, knowledge is absolutely essential, fundamental.

I don't think they should always be in the dark. But sometimes they will be ignorant of key information because their characters have a POV in the setting and I am trying to help maintain that. This isn't that radical of a notion. And I am also not averse to pulling back the curtain. But there are times when PCs simply won't know they are being followed by someone for example (I always give them a chance through a skill roll, or if they take needed precautions to discern that)