GM fiat - an illustration

[Campbell]

It is when players can introduce new information into the game world. Narrativists would say they adhere to the agreed upon fiction boundaries but otherwise it's wide open. So a player could say, "I go into town and find my sister at the tavern where she works" and that would suddenly be a true fact in the world so long as no one had established anything to the contrary prior to that time. Obviously there are degrees in this as well but that is the simple one sentence idea.

This is just fundamentally untrue of games like Apocalypse World. The GM has framing authority. They just have restrictions on that framing authority and a differing agenda than simulating a world. 95% of the differences lay in how the GM role functions. My interface as a player in Apocalypse World is almost entirely the same as it would be in a more traditional game.

The GM/MC will sometimes ask questions to establish things, but that too relies on the GM actively asking in accordance with their framing authority.

We have been having these discussions for years and you have been an active participant. Where are you getting this from? Do you have posts or game texts to point to?

 

[Maxperson]

That is the problem. That is not what those words mean. Stop using them that way.

None of your examples have anything to do with agency. For example, if I was walking along and fell into a well and couldn't get out, I have lost zero agency. When someone mind controls me so that when I think I'm turning left I am in fact turning right, then that is when I am losing agency. As long as the choices I make are mine and not secretly changed, then I have agency.

Almost everyone has agency in the real world. The question we are debating is agency in a game. If the DM is railroading the group then that is a loss of agency. If the DM is fudging the dice or moving around the rooms to force what he wants then that is a loss of agency. The fact I have used my fireball and can't cast it again is not a loss of agency.

Those weren't my words.

 

[thefutilist]

To me, this doesn't seem right.

First, it seems to leave it mysterious why you use dice in your Sorcerer-esque play.

Like with Sorcerer dice. You can just fiat, well not by the rules but you catch my drift. The dice aren't doing any mediation between player authority in terms of the outcomes the players want. They provide bounce or 'the unwelcome' if you buy into Vincent's whole thing (I'm on the fence about it)

Which gets right back to my point in the social conflict thread.

Resolving characters social conflict by fiat is the Narrativist equivalent of resolving bypassing the magical trap by fiat. It's not an unmitigated good but the ability to do so, and seeing what's functional about doing so, colours everything else. Or everything else is downstream if that makes sense. Given I 'can' do it this way, what are the benefits of doing it in other ways (my answer to this is lots depending on the game)


Where as how I'm reading the 'other side' is that such a use of fiat is always capricious to the point of undermining play. Or I've been severely mistaken about the position.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I would never use the words "player agency", those are your words, not mine. I would say my players have the freedom to do and try anything they want. For example in my game, no player asks me a question like "can my character do that". That can get you thrown out of the game. I want my players to just try it and see what happens. And this works out great! The good players in my game just try things...whatever they think of on a whim. Sometimes it works, sometimes not, but it is all fun.

We have very different styles in that case. I am fine with people asking questions or saying "Can my character do that?"

 

[thefutilist]

Suppose that two things that we wanted to learn, from our play, were (i) whether Jackson's assassin is so good that they can beat an Alarm spell, and (ii) what that would mean for a confrontation between the assassin and the PCs. Then the 8 hour duration of the spell would contribute context/colour for that - and maybe the GM, following the sort of approach you've described out, reaches the view that yes, Jackson's assassin is that good and so narrates Jackson's assassin beating the spell. This is the expressive/artistic aspect you have posted about upthread.

In this case, though, the GM wouldn't then narrate to the player, "You die as Jackson's assassin plunges her knife into your chest". Because that would undercut the second goal.

Yeah I agree. This is like rubber meets road stuff because we're dealing with how effective the results of an action should be and when it causes a new conflict. I'm playing the pool at the moment and my basic rule is something like 'as effective as you want/think up until the point you want to find something out.' So while it would be legit to have Jackson murder them, I'm not going to do that.

 

[bloodtide]

I find the immersiveness of narrative games to be more akin to the immersiveness of most games in general. You can get into almost any game deeply. What sets our style of play apart and why I think D&D exploded in the 1970's as a new form of game is the immersion in a setting different from our own world but feeling like a magical version of it. The various narrative approaches always push us out of that immersion. If my fellow player names a tavern and especially if the DM asked him to name it, I instantly start thinking like a player and not my character. I don't like that experience.

I will always say D&D exploded not because the rules were so amazing, it was everything beyond the rules.

I want a DM who will to the very best of his or her ability hide the fact the world is not real. I want the appearance of a living breathing world where my suspension of disbelief is strong enough that I half believe it's real. I get that from books and movies that are really good. When a book or movie though does something stupid and non-immersive, it is ruined for me.

I agree. I do my best to create this.

With respect I think there's an element of trying to preserve the mystery of the stage magician's techniques in your position here. 'Don't peek behind the curtain'.

I agree. Most players love a good game and can be amazed forever by one. But tell them anything 'behind the curtain' and it ruins it.

I think the narrative approach is a different sort of game. Those that enjoy it have their own reasons and perhaps for them it is immersive. It is not at all for me. It would be more akin to a boardgame where each player lays down tiles to change the game. I might enjoy a one off boardgame with those characteristics but I wouldn't want to roleplay an entire campaign that way. And I am most definitely NOT saying narrative play is a board game. I'm just saying in that one element they share something with those board games.

Agreed.

Yeah I really should mention this more. 99% of rpg play is mediocre imo. Most of the texts are terrible and a great deal of play is a confused mish-mash that would be greatly improved if it was more considered. A lot of my arguments are based around talking to people that do have considered play but they are in no way representative.

I agree. Just go to any public place and watch a group kinda sorta play D&D. They kinda sorta just sit there most of the time and don't really have any fun....like everyone is waiting for something to happen, and it never does.

We have been having these discussions for years and you have been an active participant. Where are you getting this from? Do you have posts or game texts to point to?

How about the Spire one from up thread? One a day a character has an ability that they can just say "hey I know a tavern/inn nearby with an owner I know" and 'pop', such a place must be added to the game world as per the rules.

How about games that have the "oh I remembered that rule" that let the players "remember" something they should have on their character but "forgot" to get or buy. So if like there character falls into a pit they can just say "oh good thing I was caring this 50 feet of rope the whole time" as they write down '50 rope' on their character sheet.

We have very different styles in that case. I am fine with people asking questions or saying "Can my character do that?"

I find this a huge waste of time. If you let them, players will ask it they can do nearly everything all the time. It over takes the whole game.

After all, the most basic answer is a waste of time as it is "no" or "maybe".

 

[Bedrockgames]

I find this a huge waste of time. If you let them, players will ask it they can do nearly everything all the time. It over takes the whole game.

After all, the most basic answer is a waste of time as it is "no" or "maybe".

I haven't found this to be the case

 

[Maxperson]

We have very different styles in that case. I am fine with people asking questions or saying "Can my character do that?"

I prefer not to have my players ask questions about what their characters can or cannot do. Just tell me, "I try and do X, "Instead of asking me, "Can I do X?" We will see if you can accomplish it through the rules of the game. I don't like games to include a bunch of Q&A sessions.

 

[bloodtide]

I haven't found this to be the case

I have, so much that it ruins games.

When some player asked "can my character walk across the room and close the door?", my answer will be a quick "no, as your not playing in this game anymore".

When a player says "my character will try and walk across the room and try to close the door", my answer will be "your character walks over and closes the door".

I prefer not to have my players ask questions about what their characters can or cannot do. Just tell me, "I try and do X, "Instead of asking me, "Can I do X?" We will see if you can accomplish it through the rules of the game. I don't like games to include a bunch of Q&A sessions.

Wait...we agree on something again!

 

[Micah Sweet]

By casting every game that works differently than the model of play you prefer in a single bucket you risk providing a wildly inaccurate view of other people's play experiences and the individual games in question. It would be much more accurate to simply call them "games I don't enjoy" for all they have in common.

I did warn that it wasn't accurate. If you prefer to look at the aspects I outlined as, "things some games have that I don't like", I won't argue with you.