GM fiat - an illustration

[EzekielRaiden]

OK. My question, then, is: do you accept that this is a counter-example to your claim that there can be no reasoning or "objectivity" without pre-authorship?

I agree that they involve reasoning (any form of roleplay necessarily must). I do not agree that that reasoning is the kind of reasoning I would consider to be solving-a-mystery. It very much instead read as people collectively creating fiction about a mystery, constrained by the (relatively minimal) rules of a game to do so.

 

[hawkeyefan]

No. Not completely. If I haven't thought of something that the players ask the NPC, and the NPC should know it, it would be bad faith on my part to decide the NPC doesn't know it. Or to set a super high DC in order to keep the information away from the party.

If I am playing in good faith, then I don't have the control to say no the NPC doesn't know that.

This is all so vague. What someone “should” know is very subjective. Yes, there may be some very immediate and obvious things that we’d broadly agree on… but the vast majority of it would be uncertain. In that case, it’d be entirely up to the DM.

Yep. In those situations, the DM isn't really the one who brought the clue into the game. The player did with his ingenuity. If the location was someplace like a bank or FBI building, the DM acting in good faith had to allow it since the cameras and footage would be there.

What? I mean I realize this is a very basic example, but the presence of cameras is up to the DM. Whether they were functional or not is up to the DM. I mean we’ve all seen plenty of movies or books where the security system is neutralized… it’s a total trope at this point. The capability of the culprit to neutralize the system? Up to the DM.

You’re falsely attributing to the players authorial ability clearly held by the GM. The players can ask “are there cameras” and then everything that happens in response is up to the GM.

This is why I asked to describe what it would look like in play.

I think this also circles back nicely to the OP and shows how multiple points of GM fiat can overwhelm a game mechanic, or even a game.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't think we're meant to actually talk about how play occurs, are we?

It would seem so. Better to dodge and use vague words and try to maintain the “magic” of play.

Some people have tried to discuss what issues doing it like this has, and what benefits it has, and what sort of gameplay the different approaches produce. That to me would seem like far more fruitful line of discussion, but I guess we can just keep doing... whatever this is.

Feel free to offer something you consider worth discussing.

 

[bloodtide]

THE PLAYERS WILL COME UP WITH THINGS THAT THE DM DIDN'T THINK OF.

In the most pure, classic traditional game, the players(that is the players that only have a PC in the game or such) can only make 'suggestions'. The players don't directly add anything to the game and never, ever alter the game reality. Only the DM can do that.

Many DMs, though most often New or Casual DMs, often don't make 'complete' mysteries or simply make mistakes or simply don't think of everything. This leaves plenty of 'holes' for players to think of things the DM never did. And when a player does, the DM can take the players suggestion and add it to the game.

This is much different then the games where all players, including the player DM, are equal. In this type of game the player can add things to the game, and by the rules of the game the DM must just say "yes player" and the things are added to the game.

Of course, gamers could all agree to let the players alter game reality even if the game has no official rules for it.

 

[Maxperson]

This is all so vague. What someone “should” know is very subjective. Yes, there may be some very immediate and obvious things that we’d broadly agree on… but the vast majority of it would be uncertain. In that case, it’d be entirely up to the DM.

It has to be vague in a discussion like this. You are asking for specifics that can only be known in a detailed adventure where the DM knows the layout, NPCs(with flaws, knowledge areas and personalities), etc. I also think that you are underestimating how much would be uncertain, but as you say, we broadly agree.

Also, I didn't say that the players would automatically succeed. I said that if the DM was acting in good faith, there would be at least a reasonable chance that the players would find out something/a clue.

What? I mean I realize this is a very basic example, but the presence of cameras is up to the DM. Whether they were functional or not is up to the DM. I mean we’ve all seen plenty of movies or books where the security system is neutralized… it’s a total trope at this point. The capability of the culprit to neutralize the system? Up to the DM.

You’re falsely attributing to the players authorial ability clearly held by the GM. The players can ask “are there cameras” and then everything that happens in response is up to the GM.

No. If I have set it up so that they have neutralized the cameras or they are broken, then I have thought of it. The example given was for when the DM didn't think of it, so they wouldn't be broken or neutralized.

Now some DMs might call for a roll, and on a roll of 1 or something they would add in a bad luck complication like the above, but would be a house rule and so isn't something I am really considering with my arguments.

I think this also circles back nicely to the OP and shows how multiple points of GM fiat can overwhelm a game mechanic, or even a game.

I haven't seen anything here that I would consider to be even close to overwhelming with regard to mechanics.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It has to be vague in a discussion like this. You are asking for specifics that can only be known in a detailed adventure where the DM knows the layout, NPCs(with flaws, knowledge areas and personalities), etc. I also think that you are underestimating how much would be uncertain, but as you say, we broadly agree.

No, we can discuss it in concrete terms of play.

In Stonetop, for example, if a player said that the character was looking for a clue somewhere, they’d roll +Wis (2d6 plus their Wisdom score, typically between -1 and +3). On a 10+ they’d get to ask 3 questions from the Seek Insight list. On a 7-9, they’d get to ask 1. On a 6-, the GM makes a move.

Very clear procedure that can be described without the specifics of the fiction.

It seems to me that most of the trad proponents in this thread are very reluctant to talk about what actually happens at the table. Because so much of it is “the GM decides” and the more they say that, the more it makes them realize how much they’re controlling the game.

Also, I didn't say that the players would automatically succeed. I said that if the DM was acting in good faith, there would be at least a reasonable chance that the players would find out something/a clue.

You said the players could create a clue. Now you’re acknowledging that the clues come from the DM. The players can prompt the DM with questions, but it’s largely up to the DM if the question results in a clue. And the quality of the clue. And how that clue propels the PCs.

As I said… the GM has a massive amount of influence here.

No. If I have set it up so that they have neutralized the cameras or they are broken, then I have thought of it. The example given was for when the DM didn't think of it, so they wouldn't be broken or neutralized.

So the NPCs are limited by the DM in this way? So some kind of master thief would miss an obvious obstacle like cameras because the DM didn’t think of it?

Now some DMs might call for a roll, and on a roll of 1 or something they would add in a bad luck complication like the above, but would be a house rule and so isn't something I am really considering with my arguments.

Well, without resorting to house rules or ad hoc rulings, I’d think that having the NPC making some kind of skill check would make sense. Like a Stealth check.

If I was running a mystery scenario with a system like this, when the player asked about the cameras, I’d make a check for the NPC, and then narrate accordingly.

I haven't seen anything here that I would consider to be even close to overwhelming with regard to mechanics.

I was comparing the amount of GM Fiat in the mystery scenario to the amount of GM Fiat in the resolution of the Alarm spell from the OP.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It seems to me that most of the trad proponents in this thread are very reluctant to talk about what actually happens at the table. Because so much of it is “the GM decides” and the more they say that, the more it makes them realize how much they’re controlling the game.

It is because we feel, or at least it seems, when you break things down to incremental steps and parts as you do, it is reductive and misses a lot of the nuances of ‘trad play’. That is why we prefer natural language and language you find vague. We think more precise language overlooks details that might be more subtle or even unconscious. It is five if you want to take a scientific approach but maybe do it with less hubris?

Also this isn’t a style fight. All people are saying is there are scenarios where the players are really trying to solve a mystery that exists as an objective thing in the setting. That isn’t even about trad play versus other styles of play

 

[EzekielRaiden]

In the most pure, classic traditional game, the players(that is the players that only have a PC in the game or such) can only make 'suggestions'. The players don't directly add anything to the game and never, ever alter the game reality. Only the DM can do that.

Many DMs, though most often New or Casual DMs, often don't make 'complete' mysteries or simply make mistakes or simply don't think of everything. This leaves plenty of 'holes' for players to think of things the DM never did. And when a player does, the DM can take the players suggestion and add it to the game.

This is much different then the games where all players, including the player DM, are equal. In this type of game the player can add things to the game, and by the rules of the game the DM must just say "yes player" and the things are added to the game.

Of course, gamers could all agree to let the players alter game reality even if the game has no official rules for it.

As usual, your dismissive and insulting attitude reflects an almost total lack of understanding of the things you ridicule. I really don't get your crusade against things you don't like, don't understand, don't want to understand, but for whatever reason need to denigrate as The Worst Thing Ever.

 

[Campbell]

So right now, I am running a game of Blades, for a crew of hawkers (for an in-person group). We use what I would call moderate myth in that I prepare only what I feel I need for the next session. This prep is binding secret backstory meant to highlight the conflicts of interest that exist between factions and also internal to the factions (so the Circle of Flame is a house divided). We are to the point where our version of Duskvol is damn near unrecognizable. Setting elements that did not previously exist get added weak to weak based on what I feel needs additional depth and will make arranging sales more interesting.

As a GM I treat this secret backstory similar to way Dogs in the Vineyard treats its towns, as secrets you cannot wait to tell. This is pretty similar to the way I tend to run more traditional games.

I do not believe that because elements like Rodric, the former leader of the Crows, being the head of the Reconciled or Rosalyn Dimmer being housebound because she's looked in a decades long argument with ghost of a friend were established after the game began that the setting or moments of play are any less worthy of feeling like you are there in the moment or worthy of investigation. I do not feel like it's less real than a Call of Cthulhu scenario. These moments are not unearned or inauthentic. Play is not less coherent. I would definitely put our Duskvol up there with anything published on that level.

I also do not consider it more real, coherent or tangible than say the Blades game @Manbearcat ran that had basically zero binding prep.

I get there is a difference and a sort of fun of guessing who the murderer was before its revealed in a mystery novel, but that's not about how real (or coherent) the story is. It's just a fun game we play.

 

[Campbell]

The reason this matters, is because some people want to gate keep that feeling of being there in the moment behind a particular process. This is no different than Method Actors believing they have some sort of special sauce (and that other approaches to acting are inauthentic). They are wrong. Just because they have only one way to get there does not mean there is only one way.