GM fiat - an illustration

[hawkeyefan]

Right. Or to think about it differently, one could make a different game just like clue with different characters, locations and weapons, perhaps set in a medieval castle. Call it Mystery Castle and it would be a totally different game.

I have the D&D edition of Clue. My kids got it for me for Christmas a couple years ago.

It's all Forgotten Realms things... the characters, the weapons, the buildings (rather than the rooms).

It's the same game.

 

[FrogReaver]

And, you are allowed to have your opinion.

Much thanks for your generous allowance kind sir.

 

[FrogReaver]

I have the D&D edition of Clue. My kids got it for me for Christmas a couple years ago.

It's all Forgotten Realms things... the characters, the weapons, the buildings (rather than the rooms).

It's the same game.

Depends on what one means by game, no?

 

[pemerton]

Step 1 Set up a pre-established correctness condition vs Step 1 don't setup a preestablished correctness condition. That's already a different gameplay process right out the gate.

So, here is the post that I made not far upthread:

To put it another way, I take the point to be that the existence of a pre-established correctness condition doesn't change the actual process of game play, the way that the players engage with and think about the fiction, etc.

So, given that in that post I identify a pre-established correctness condition as one of multiple possible approaches, you don't need to point it out to me. But that is not part of the process of play, either: it's prep. The gameplay begins with the players engaging with and thinking about the fiction. (Suppose you want to say that prep is also play, OK, knock yourself out. But were you really confused by the meaning of "gameplay" in my post?)

Assuming the players agreed to play a game with a pre-established correctness condition and the GM obliges in good faith, then the players can factor the knowledge that there exists a pre-established correctness condition into any decisions they make. Decisions = engaging with the ficiton (just in case the obvious needs stated). In any game where this isn't so, they cannot do that.

What does this mean? As in, what does it mean to "factor the knowledge of pre-established correctness conditions into their game play".

 

[hawkeyefan]

It's organic. If they say something that forces me to respond in a way that something that wasn't there before is now, they've caused it to be in the game.

I mean, you can think the Earth revolves around the moon for all that I care, and you'd be just as accurate!

Everything you described there is a DM being adversarial. Outright saying no via tampering, the perpetrator knowing, etc. is the DM countering the player declarations without cause, which is both adversarial and bad faith DMing.

No, it's not! How do you figure? If they say "what about the cameras" and the DM hadn't thought of that, then that's it? Mystery solved. They watch the video and there's Colonel Mustard with the rope, plain as day!

Of course not.

So the players prompt the DM with an unexpected question... what about the cameras... and the DM then has to determine what the cameras may reveal. Likely a clue of some sort, no? Okay... what kind of clue. How useful a clue? Is it something concrete like a monogrammed scarf? Or something that implies some new information... like an altered video would indicate someone inside being involved?

How is any of this determined?

The DM could make it some sort of skill check and on a failure those things might happen, but outside of corner cases, the answer either needs to be yes or reasonable chance of success via a roll.

Right! The DM "could" do that. He "could" do a lot of things.

And my point to you all along has been the more that all of this stuff is up to the DM... all the background information, the new information that needs to be introduced into play, how useful it is, what if any mechanics are used to determine all this, how difficult a task may be, and on and on and on.... that impacts the players' ability to influence play.

It doesn't remove it! As you say, the players can prompt the DM with questions to possibly reveal new stuff... of some unknown scope or importance or relevance, using some methods that the DM may decide at the time!

This is why I say I'll believe it when someone can offer a clear description of play that doesn't rely on vague stuff like "it's organic".

Objectivity the way we are using it doesn't need to be 100%. What we write down is objectively true for for the fictional mystery, but that doesn't mean that everything possible has been written down.


That's a useless definition of DM fiat. It broadens to the point where it confuses things greatly. A DM making a decision within the rules of the game is not using fiat. He's using rules. To be fiat you need to step outside of the rules.

Forget the term DM fiat for a minute and just look at what I'm saying.

DM input on all this stuff... it's so much DM input that it's hard to track it all.

I think this happens and people stop attributing these things to DM choice at all... they start to say things like 'well that's what would most likely happen' and so on. But it's only what would most likely happen because of all the contributing factors... which are mostly made by the DM.

And adding their ideas. If I didn't think of it and it gets added to the game it wasn't my idea that came into play. Yes, their ability to bring ideas into the game is much more limited than a player facing game, but its not 100% DM like you keep implying. I can be forced by the social contract to act in good faith and add what they thought of into the game.

What ideas of the players get added to play?

The existence of cameras.

Okay... then what? What do the cameras reveal? Whose idea is that?

 

[pemerton]

I can do that with D&D, too. I can remove my character's name and put down Character #1, Race #2, level 3, using Weapon #4 that does 1d8 damage, and spell #32 that doesn't miss and does 1d4+1 three times and can be different targets.

If this is really true, it tells me quite a bit about the difference between your RPGing and mine . . .

 

[Micah Sweet]

Here is the post:The post notes the existence of the flavour text.

So here is one possible interpretation: I contradicted myself within the space of two short paragraphs.

Here is another possible interpretation: by "no fiction", a phrase occurring as a premise to the conclusion that the game has no stance, I meant has no fiction as a part of the gameplay. And thus is like other board games, and is unlike RPGs.

Obviously I have an opinion on the best interpretation. But you do you.

That does seem to be what you meant to say. Fair enough.

 

[Bedrockgames]

What term would be acceptable to you?

It is late at night so don't hold me to this specific phrasing, but something that feels more style natural to me like 'prep' or 'prepped material'. Even "gm prepped material".

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm happy with having the game be the rules and processes of the game, and the play experience including the other elements. It seems a pretty natural take on it, to me.

I'm never going to be down with that. To me the game is everything involved in interacting with it. The rules, the lore, the art, the prep, the other players, all of it.

 

[Bedrockgames]

On the whole clue thing, I don't think debating whether there is fiction behind it is all that helpful. I used clue as an example of an objective mystery that can be solved (or at least a mystery with an objective conclusion). But I think there is a massive difference between clue and an RPG in respect to how the flavor shapes the flow of the game and play (I am very beholden in Clue to the game procedures and nothing I add in terms of flavor amounts to anything beyond that)