GM fiat - an illustration

[Bedrockgames]

As I said… it would seem to me that the process is largely “the GM decides” which is fine… but for some reason there’s reluctance or inability to discuss that.

We wouldn't use that language. We'd say the GM makes a ruling. Because when you say the GM decides it just seems like it's all fiat decrees of what follows. But a ruling could be many different things (from the GM simply deciding the cameras caught something, to the GM assigning a percentile chance, to having the NPCs make some kind of relevant roll, etc. He could even put it up to a vote if he wished (that would be unusual but could be done).

 

[AnotherGuy]

@pemerton the idea to have Randal's coat stored away with the cannisters is as a result of GM fiat right? Not a failed roll.
If yes, how do you view this differently in comparison to your thoughts on the Alarm spell with a GM using fiat to narrate outcomes without dice? i.e. what if the fiat that overcomes the Alarm spell is pushing the story forward?

 

[hawkeyefan]

We wouldn't use that language. We'd say the GM makes a ruling. Because when you say the GM decides it just seems like it's all fiat decrees of what follows. But a ruling could be many different things (from the GM simply deciding the cameras caught something, to the GM assigning a percentile chance, to having the NPCs make some kind of relevant roll, etc. He could even put it up to a vote if he wished (that would be unusual but could be done).

Well a ruling is the DM making a decision. But either way… I’d take it. All I’m asking is what happens next in play and he won’t give a straight answer.

The players ask “what about the cameras” and then what happens?

The GM makes a ruling would be an answer to the question. A little more detail might help, but it’s at least a start.

 

[thefutilist]

Another serious question. If this is the case, how can you have the players solve an objective mystery if everything needs to relate to their subjective values, passions, etc? (and I am not saying those things are bad, I can see the value in play those would add, I just can't see how you have them functionally solving a real mystery)

If I'm playing some 'generic' Narrativist game (say The Pool). If I want some deep mysterious backstory then I just write deep mysterious backstory. To give a concrete example:

The character is: A hard boiled detective, going to a seaside town to investigate the disappearance of a teenage girl. He's also an anti-natalist because the juice is never worth the squeeze.

I go away and write up a big backstory with lots of conflicting characters and secrets and I probably give some of those characters a certain stake in a pessimist word view. Maybe the murderer sees themselves as some kind of Nietzschean overman, maybe the victim was close to cashing out anyway and so on.

The actual play won't really involve the player using their deductive skills to reason through the mystery though because neither of us are interested in that. In fact if the player does try to reason through the mystery, there's probably an agenda clash because I'm not interested in that.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well a ruling is the DM making a decision. But either way… I’d take it. All I’m asking is what happens next in play and he won’t give a straight answer.

Yes but it is a decision that could go in the direction of more mechanics, of something happening in the game, of asking players more questions, etc. That is why I think the distinction is important.

The players ask “what about the cameras” and then what happens?

The GM makes a ruling would be an answer to the question. A little more detail might help, but it’s at least a start.

But that would be the answer, the GM makes a ruling. I might offer advice on how a good ruling could be made, but I wouldn't go beyond "GM makes a ruling" in terms of what the steps are here. I'd also add this is a particularly old school answer, new school players, who still might be playing a mystery like this, may provide a different response than I am.

 

[zakael19]

Yes but it is a decision that could go in the direction of more mechanics, of something happening in the game, of asking players more questions, etc. That is why I think the distinction is important.



But that would be the answer, the GM makes a ruling. I might offer advice on how a good ruling could be made, but I wouldn't go beyond "GM makes a ruling" in terms of what the steps are here. I'd also add this is a particularly old school answer, new school players, who still might be playing a mystery like this, may provide a different response than I am.

Note that "the GM makes a ruling" is almost always in fact synonymous with "the GM fiat's the response."

If the answer was instead "the GM refers to the prep or rolls on a table" then IMO that would not be fiat, because that sort of thing is established and principled.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yes but it is a decision that could go in the direction of more mechanics, of something happening in the game, of asking players more questions, etc. That is why I think the distinction is important.



But that would be the answer, the GM makes a ruling. I might offer advice on how a good ruling could be made, but I wouldn't go beyond "GM makes a ruling" in terms of what the steps are here. I'd also add this is a particularly old school answer, new school players, who still might be playing a mystery like this, may provide a different response than I am.

So this is the thing… to run with the sketched scenario…

The players mention the cameras. This prompts the GM to make a ruling of some sort. How does he determine what the cameras reveal? How helpful that information may be? How incomplete? And so on.

There may not be a set answer. One GM may say “I make a roll to see what is discovered, lowroll is minimum info, high roll is significant info.” Another GM may handle it differently.

So… in the absence of a robust process, what principles are meant to guide the GM’s decision? What should he be keeping in mind when he makes his decision or ruling?

To me, these are questions that should likely have some answers. Things like “Honor your prep” is one I think you guys would likely agree with. After that, I’m much less certain.

This is why I think it absolutely helps to break this stuff out into parts and look at them as steps in a process.

 

[Bedrockgames]

So this is the thing… to run with the sketched scenario…

The players mention the cameras. This prompts the GM to make a ruling of some sort.

I wouldn't say 'prompt' here as it sounds like a computer program or pavlovian response to me. And to be clear, I am not saying this is how the process unfolds each time (there is going to be variability)

How does he determine what the cameras reveal? How helpful that information may be? How incomplete? And so on.

Well we are talking about a broad range of styles and games so there isn't one response. And like I said, this is a gray area. But a GM could be more or less objective about it. So it isn't like this gray area diminishes something like 'honoring prep' if you don't want it to.

I think most GMs try to figure out how probably it was the camera was there, and what it likely would have revealed if it were based on what he knows about the background of the scenario (and the is why when running mysteries, I think you start to learn to be more detailed because inevitably players start asking these kinds of questions).

There may not be a set answer. One GM may say “I make a roll to see what is discovered, lowroll is minimum info, high roll is significant info.” Another GM may handle it differently.

Yes, that is the nature of a ruling.

So… in the absence of a robust process, what principles are meant to guide the GM’s decision? What should he be keeping in mind when he makes his decision or ruling?

This is going to vary by game, group and type of campaign. There are going to be different principles for different approaches. If you want the players to be really solving the mystery, then you want more objective principals, but it may be a space in the game where people want to open up some drama potential. It is really going to vary

To me, these are questions that should likely have some answers. Things like “Honor your prep” is one I think you guys would likely agree with. After that, I’m much less certain.

Part of the problem is we are talking about objective mystery scenarios while also talking about other things. So if I am trying to run this as a mystery scenario the players can solve, personally I won't worry too too much about these gray areas, because there is still plenty of solid background information that they handle more objectively. But I would tent to lean on what feels probable and using rolls because it is an unknown. I may even ask my players what they think is a fair percentage based on what is the most likely thing

This is why I think it absolutely helps to break this stuff out into parts and look at them as steps in a process.

I am not sure breaking the process down is very helpful. You need to understand what a ruling is, and that the GM describes things and the players say what they want to do. But I would hesitate to get too prescriptive

 

[Bedrockgames]

Note that "the GM makes a ruling" is almost always in fact synonymous with "the GM fiat's the response."

If the answer was instead "the GM refers to the prep or rolls on a table" then IMO that would not be fiat, because that sort of thing is established and principled.

But a ruling could be anything from a fiat, to rolling on a table, to asking for an attribute or skill roll, to putting a question out to the players, to asking the players to make some rolls, etc. Rulings are very broad. A key idea behind rulings is when the players are trying to do something, the GM figures out on the fly how to expand that space in the game for them

 

[soviet]

But a ruling could be anything from a fiat, to rolling on a table, to asking for an attribute or skill roll, to putting a question out to the players, to asking the players to make some rolls, etc. Rulings are very broad. A key idea behind rulings is when the players are trying to do something, the GM figures out on the fly how to expand that space in the game for them

If the GM determines which of several methods is used to get to the outcome, to some extent that itself is fiat, no? 'I decree this one will be a coin flip'