GM fiat - an illustration

[AbdulAlhazred]

I would say these are very different things and if you aren' making a distinction your analysis will be deeply flawed

This does seem to be true and I think it is why there is often a strong point of contention between games in the style and more trad games. I don't think there need be a hard line between them, but constraining the GM, at least from a trad perspective, is taking away the very thing that makes RPGs feel so boundless

Yeah, we will unsurprisingly disagree on the first thing, but I do think that fairly straight trad play, possibly verging into a more 'neo trad' style, isn't that far off in most respects from Narrativist play. Baker repeatedly makes this point in the AW text. There are some areas where the differences are stark though.

Our narr play is much tighter in terms of the loop between player expressed dramatic play and things happening in the fiction. When my 1KA character moved to assert her loyalty to Iga by seizing a castle from the other PCs, all sorts of stuff, including some pretty big twists arose right away. None of that was coming from any plan or plotted device. It was a mix of dice, inspiration and just all the participants doing what the game says to do. Still, if you just write down what the GM said, it sounds like they're feeding us the scenes they want to. PbtA is less reimagining what or how and more why and when.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Can I ask a question. Pick one of the narrativist games you play that you feel is the most transparent. What principle are you following when you GM and choose X as a consequence for a not complete-success roll instead of Y or Z as that consequence? Is that part transparent?

I mean obviously there are principles that constrain what values X, Y and Z can take, but the process you used to arrive at X instead of Y or Z is just as opaque as ever, unless I’m missing something?

Let's go with Blades in the Dark, since you seem to have at least a bit of familiarity with it.

The book explicitly tells the GM what to do. This information is meant to be shared with the players. I'll reference a few sections and the most relevant bits (these are paraphrased and incomplete):

- GM Actions (pg. 188)

• Telegraph Trouble Before It Strikes- set up the actual threat that's looming so people know what's at risk, they understand the stakes
• Follow Through- deliver on that threat- you've established what's at stake, now have that threat manifest

GM Principles (pg. 193)

• Be a fan of the PCs- they have enough enemies, don't be one yourself- portray the world honestly, things are stacked against them
• Let everything flow from the fiction- let things snowball based on the starting situation and then what the characters do- NPCs react based on their goals and methods- you don't need to "manage" the game

GM Best Practices (pg. 194)

• Earn the trust of the group- be a supportive and fair advocate of the integrity of the fiction- do not set up for particular outcomes- when you advocate for something the players will know that it's based on this integrity, not to get your way or to arrange situations to your liking
• Lead an interesting conversation- ask questions and prompt ideas- be curious about what the players have to say
• Create an atmosphere of inquiry at the table- play to find out - don't decide outcomes
• Help the players use the game system- encourage them to pursue the characters' goals- don't let them flounder- encourage them to describe opportunities they have and how to pursue those opportunities
• Don't block- it's not your job to say "you can't do that"- you are not the sole authority of what the characters can and cannot do- show them that there's a path to what they want to do
• Keep the meta channel open- when you portray an NPC, tell the players things that are going unsaid- invite them to ask questions and gather information- the characters have a broad range of senses and intuitions to bring to bear in the fiction; the players have only the narrow channel of your few words- help them out by sharing what they might suspect, intuit, feel, and predict
• Be a curious explorer of the game in play- your game is a cool TV show and you're its biggest fan- ask the players questions and let them contribute- these questions will often lead to goals, approaches, and rolls
• Play Goal-Forward- poll the group about what goal they're pursuing, at all levels of play; the campaign, the session, this moment- let the players lead where things go next
• Be aware of potential fiction vs. established fiction- potential fiction is everything in your head that you haven't put into play yet- it's a cloud of possible things, organized according to the current circumstances

GM Bad Habits (pg. 197)

• Don't Overcomplicate things- the consequences you inflict on a failure or success with consequence will usually be obvious since the action has already been established- but sometimes you'll draw a blank- in those moments, it's best to keep it simple- Heat or Harm are easily inflicted consequences- not everything needs to be a brutal reversal of fortune- keep it simple- ask the players for their input if you feel stuck
• Don't hold back on what they earn- they get what they earned- don't weasel out of it- things will be tough enough on them without your thumb on the scale
• Don't say no- There's almost always a better answer than "no" or "you can't do that"- work with the players to find a way to what they want to see happen

There are more in the book, and each of the above is only a summary. I hope you can see how this advice helps guide the GM on how to approach things, both in the inflicting of consequences, and also in other aspects of the game.

That seemed like very complicated way of saying that you do not like sim-immersionism. I am not sure if the implication is that sim-immersionism is somehow "wrong" of "faulty" way to play.

No. The statement is that such play is less concerned with the game concerns that @Manbearcat talks about.

But the players don't need to be privy to the minutiae of the GM decision making process.

Why not? What's gained by keeping such things from them? What's lost?

So while my style of play might not work for Manbearcat, that it does work for myself should be proof enough that it is possible to have a functionally gameful space for others. It's functional for me, but not functional for him.

I'd say it's more proof that different folks will have different levels of acceptance about varying levels of focus on functional gameful space.

My take is that there is still plenty of non-transparent GM decision making in whatever style one plays in. Narrativism does a good job of nailing down when the GM should introduce a consequence (traditional play is a bit more free form there), but just like traditional it doesn’t nail down what any particular consequence should be. It may constrain the consequences more explicitly and transparently, but they can still be any number of things within the given constraints.

I don't really think so. That there may be decisions made that the players may not expect prior, generally speaking, all of them should be following from the fiction, and generally adhering to the kinds of principles listed above. Meaning that they generally support the players and what they're attempting in some way... they're not intended to thwart or confound the players.

Yeah. To me it is weird that people think nar games are somehow less GM driven than trad ones. In my expereince in many nar games the GM is not bound by myth nearly the same degree than in trad games, and the common consequence mechanic constantly asks new input from the GM that they just make up on the spot and it can be nearly anything. I feel that in such game I am way more mercy on the GM's whims than in more trad game. (At least assuming that both games were run with similar level of rigour and consistency.)

Well, look at the OP for a microcosm of what we're talking about. Look how much influence the GM has with the Alarm spell. Just all the factors that are entirely up to the GM. Then look at Aethereal Premonitions.

Now, apply that across the entirety of play. That's what I've largely been trying to point out with my posts. You mistakenly said something about the OP being anti-trad and that I agree... but that's not the case. I'm not anti-trad. I am just capable of looking at it and seeing how dependent it is on the GM for so much of its function.

I'd also add that in non-nar when the GM is picking the DC for a player action - there is a fairly intuitive process there - he looks at the fictional situation, tries to account for how hard it should be to succeed/fail, then sets a DC to match that level of difficulty. If the DC is drastically outside the players expected range given the description, the player may question the GM about it, possibly the GM left out some important details, or possibly the GM and player disagree about how difficult such a task should be. In any event the table usually decides how to best proceed, either ret con, take such into account for future DC's, play on and talk through more in depth later, etc.

So again, let's compare to Blades in the Dark. In that game, the GM determines the Position of any possible action as Controlled, Risky, or Desperate. So that's three tiers that can be applied that indicate the risk and difficulty of any action. And... importantly... per the text, these are negotiable! Yes, the GM has final say... but the text encourages the players to state their case if they think the Position should be different, and it encourages the GM to listen to what they say and to consider it.

With D&D and similar games where the GM is to set a DC or Target Number... these are usually much more open ended. This means there are far more tiers that can be applied. Yes, the book gives some generic ratings of difficulties and DCs, but there's far more blurriness between these tiers. Also, I don't think it says anything about these being negotiable. Over time, keeping track of DCs that are set

Also wanted to add, players in such games are often okay with not having exact probabilities during play, because such isn't information their character would have and they want to make decisions from that stance as much as possible.

Then this is the player saying "I'm less concerned about the game than I am about feeling as my character would" or what have you.

This is like saying that players of narrativist focused games are less concerned with simulation! Yes... of course!

I don’t agree with this part. D&D has lower system constraints and principles than narrativist games. However, it has greater fictional constraints due to typically having more fictional details pre-authored. It also often has just as stringent (if not more) principles (albeit personal ones instead of system ones). Those principles of d&d DMs are just often much more nuanced and situation dependent.

I don't think this is true at all. The GM in D&D is authorized by the rules to essentially do whatever they want. Yes, there are the rules and processes, and here are there some suggestions on how to use those, and what to do when they don't apply... but there's also tons of reminders that ultimately, it's up to the GM.

There is also no set list of principles, and those there are are scattered throughout the book. Many will cite this as a strength rather than a flaw because it "let's players make the game their own"... and okay, fine. But the tradeoff of that is that there's no clearly defined approach to play. There's a ton of grey area... and individual GMs are going to take those grey areas and fill them up with their own ideas, many of which may not be shared with players.

I don't think you guys are being honest about this comparison... or else your experience with narrativist play is insufficient to have learned all this, or perhaps more likely, run by someone influenced too much by more trad-play tendencies of other games rather than the principles of play offered by these games.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Well, look at the OP for a microcosm of what we're talking about. Look how much influence the GM has with the Alarm spell. Just all the factors that are entirely up to the GM. Then look at Aethereal Premonitions.

Well, I can't, because despite several request no one is willing to quote the full rules context in which Aetherial Premonitions operates. But assuming something similar than most narrativist games, there is possibility of rolling some sort of "bad stuff happens" on the camp event roll, and then the GM makes up the bad stuff in question.

Now, apply that across the entirety of play. That's what I've largely been trying to point out with my posts. You mistakenly said something about the OP being anti-trad and that I agree... but that's not the case. I'm not anti-trad. I am just capable of looking at it and seeing how dependent it is on the GM for so much of its function.

I think you're blind to the crazy amount of GM input the narrative games constantly ask for. And unlike in the trad approach, the GM is not bound by the myth for that input.

So again, let's compare to Blades in the Dark. In that game, the GM determines the Position of any possible action as Controlled, Risky, or Desperate. So that's three tiers that can be applied that indicate the risk and difficulty of any action. And... importantly... per the text, these are negotiable! Yes, the GM has final say... but the text encourages the players to state their case if they think the Position should be different, and it encourages the GM to listen to what they say and to consider it.

That, BTW is one of the things that creates "the writer's room" and takes it out of the character perspective. And this is the sort negative (were one it to consider such) alongside the slowing down of the gameplay, where the GM processes being open and negotiable creates.

With D&D and similar games where the GM is to set a DC or Target Number... these are usually much more open ended. This means there are far more tiers that can be applied. Yes, the book gives some generic ratings of difficulties and DCs, but there's far more blurriness between these tiers. Also, I don't think it says anything about these being negotiable. Over time, keeping track of DCs that are set

I don't really agree. There are six recommended levels of DCs in D&D 5e (and sure, they could use more examples for what those mean,) but there is only one axis as opposed of several axis BitD operates on.

But that is really not where the GM power in BitD comes mainly from. It comes from loose myth, and the system system constantly asking for significant GM input. In such game the GM is constantly inventing new fluff and introducing complications on a whim. There is constant and massive avenue of GM fiat going on, and to me it is utterly wild that proponents of the style do not see it. Again, it is not bad thing, but it is super ironic to me that you think it is the trad aficionados who are blind to the amount of GM input in their games.

I don't think this is true at all. The GM in D&D is authorized by the rules to essentially do whatever they want. Yes, there are the rules and processes, and here are there some suggestions on how to use those, and what to do when they don't apply... but there's also tons of reminders that ultimately, it's up to the GM.

There is also no set list of principles, and those there are are scattered throughout the book. Many will cite this as a strength rather than a flaw because it "let's players make the game their own"... and okay, fine. But the tradeoff of that is that there's no clearly defined approach to play. There's a ton of grey area... and individual GMs are going to take those grey areas and fill them up with their own ideas, many of which may not be shared with players.

I don't think you guys are being honest about this comparison... or else your experience with narrativist play is insufficient to have learned all this, or perhaps more likely, run by someone influenced too much by more trad-play tendencies of other games rather than the principles of play offered by these games.

I partially agree with you here. D&D as written is much more open and has muddy principles and guidelines. But I am not talking about just about D&D here, I am talking about gaming style that comes with its own axioms. Like D&D as written is fine with fudging and illusionism, but the objective sim style we've been talking about here would nevertheless eschew such practices.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well, I can't, because despite several request no one is willing to quote the full rules context in which Aetherial Premonitions operates. But assuming something similar than most narrativist games, there is possibility of rolling some sort of "bad stuff happens" on the camp event roll, and then the GM makes up the bad stuff in question.

Ah, okay. Well then look at the many posts I've made in this thread about how much input the GM has in relation to predetermined mystery scenarios. Or any number of other examples that have been brought up.

I think you're blinded the crazy amount of GM input the narrative games constantly ask for. And unlike in the trad approach, the GM is not bound by myth for that input.

That the GM has input is certain. As for being bound by myth... that varies by game. Certainly there are setting elements and the like that can be expected. Blades in the Dark is likely to take place in Doskvol, with its many districts and factions and there will be scoundrels and scores and criminal shenanigans and so on. Dogs in the Vineyard has the GM prepare a town before play, which will be filled with potential conflict. So a lot of this is predetermined. The main difference here, in my opinion, is that the discovery of that myth is not the interesting part, but rather what do the Dogs do about it. The GM isn't trying to keep these details hidden from the players.

So no... I'm not going to accept your assertion without some kind of evidence to support it.

That, BTW is one of the things that creates "the writer's room" and takes it out of the character perspective. And this is the sort negative (were one it to consider such) alongside the slowing down of the gameplay, where the GM processes being open and negotiable creates.

While I disagree that it's at all like a writer's room... clearly the character will have an idea of the level of risk in most cases, so when the player is advocating for a different position, they're doing so based on something in the fiction to support that... even if this bothers a player in some way and breaks their immersion, that doesn't have anything to do with the gamist element that we're talking about.

That's very clearly a sim-immersionist view and rather proves what @Manbearcat is talking about. Gamism is far less a concern for sim-immersionists. In this case, the player is more concerned with portraying their character than with interacting with the rules of the game.

I don't really agree. There are six recommended levels of DCs in D&D 5e (and sure, they could use more examples for what those mean,) but there is only one axis as opposed of several axis BitD operates on.

Blades in the Dark has Postion: three categories of Risk/Danger Level for any action.

Then, there is Effect, this is the outcome of the action and there are three primary categories: Great, Standard, or Limited. There are also instances of Zero Effect or Beyond Great effect in certain circumstances.

These are two axes. Known to the players before any roll is made. Negotiable if the player thinks that another is in order based on the situation in play.

In D&D, the DM has six recommended DCs 5, 10, 15 20, 25, and 30, with 5 being Very Easy and 30 being Nearly Impossible. However, there are also many other numbers within that range that can be used. I have seen DCs of 18 or 22 and so on. So a wider range of difficulties.

And what about the risk? What about the level of success? Perhaps you get a Critical Success on a Nat 20, and maybe a Fumble or Crit Fail on a Nat 1. But those are dependent on the group and are unknown prior to the roll. So how do we determine what happens on a failure? Sometimes, as with a spell, the consequences may be very clear. Other times, they're not clear at all. This axis as you described it for Blades, is not set at all. This can be a complete unknown to the player prior to their roll.

And yes... that may be the case for the character. But again, that's where sim-immersionism has a priority other than gamism.

But that is really not where the GM power in BitD comes mainly from. It comes from loose myth, and the system system constantly asking for significant GM input. In such game the GM is constantly inventing new fluff and introducing complications on a whim. There is constant and massive avenue of GM fiat going on, and to me it is utterly wild that proponents of the style do not see it. Again, it is not bad thing, but it is super ironic to me that you think it is the trad aficionados who are blind to the amount of GM input in their games.

Because again, I think your experience with the game is flawed in some way. Based on what you've shared of your play, I think your GM is smuggling in practices better suited to more trad-based play.

If you have something supporting your assertions here, either principles from the text that would counter those I've already shared (which would be very odd) or examples of actual play, share them. But just saying "I think this" really doesn't do a lot of work here.

I partially agree with you here. D&D as written is much more open and has muddy principles and guidelines. But I am not talking about just about D&D here, I am talking about gaming style that comes with its own axioms. Like D&D as written is fine with fudging and illusionism, but the objective sim style we've been talking about here would nevertheless eschew such practices.

Sure, but D&D is the game many are mentioning. If you have a different game in mind that is more clear on its processes, then please bring it up as an example.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Our narr play is much tighter in terms of the loop between player expressed dramatic play and things happening in the fiction. When my 1KA character moved to assert her loyalty to Iga by seizing a castle from the other PCs, all sorts of stuff, including some pretty big twists arose right away. None of that was coming from any plan or plotted device. It was a mix of dice, inspiration and just all the participants doing what the game says to do. Still, if you just write down what the GM said, it sounds like they're feeding us the scenes they want to. PbtA is less reimagining what or how and more why and when.

This is why I don't like teh whole "GMs notes" thing. Because in trad play all kinds of twists arise as well (and also from a combination of things like dice, inspiration, etc). This is why I often use terms like chemistry and living world. The Gm may be planning background info, setting information, and characters. But he isn't planning what is going to happen in advance

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That the GM has input is certain. As for being bound by myth... that varies by game. Certainly there are setting elements and the like that can be expected. Blades in the Dark is likely to take place in Doskvol, with its many districts and factions and there will be scoundrels and scores and criminal shenanigans and so on. Dogs in the Vineyard has the GM prepare a town before play, which will be filled with potential conflict. So a lot of this is predetermined. The main difference here, in my opinion, is that the discovery of that myth is not the interesting part, but rather what do the Dogs do about it. The GM isn't trying to keep these details hidden from the players.

So no... I'm not going to accept your assertion without some kind of evidence to support it.

So that sort of high level myth is not what I am talking about. I mean local details of the situation being predetermined or not. In trad play they are, in narrativism often not.

While I disagree that it's at all like a writer's room... clearly the character will have an idea of the level of risk in most cases, so when the player is advocating for a different position, they're doing so based on something in the fiction to support that... even if this bothers a player in some way and breaks their immersion, that doesn't have anything to do with the gamist element that we're talking about.

That's very clearly a sim-immersionist view and rather proves what @Manbearcat is talking about. Gamism is far less a concern for sim-immersionists. In this case, the player is more concerned with portraying their character than with interacting with the rules of the game.

Yes. And I think to me immersion is the highest priority in a RPG, so things that harm it need to bring some rather significant benefits in other areas to be worth the cost.

Blades in the Dark has Postion: three categories of Risk/Danger Level for any action.

Then, there is Effect, this is the outcome of the action and there are three primary categories: Great, Standard, or Limited. There are also instances of Zero Effect or Beyond Great effect in certain circumstances.

These are two axes. Known to the players before any roll is made. Negotiable if the player thinks that another is in order based on the situation in play.

Yes, I know how it works. And to me that tow axis system seems way more complicated than single axis one.

In D&D, the DM has six recommended DCs 5, 10, 15 20, 25, and 30, with 5 being Very Easy and 30 being Nearly Impossible. However, there are also many other numbers within that range that can be used. I have seen DCs of 18 or 22 and so on. So a wider range of difficulties.

You could do that, but those are not recommended difficulties by the game. And personally I only use the six, as I feel I can have a reasonable mental model of what of the six steps corresponds to what sort of fictional situations, but I cannot really do that with a thirty step scale.

And what about the risk? What about the level of success? Perhaps you get a Critical Success on a Nat 20, and maybe a Fumble or Crit Fail on a Nat 1. But those are dependent on the group and are unknown prior to the roll.

That would be a houserule, and were I using such (I am not) I certainly would have informed the players of it.

So how do we determine what happens on a failure? Sometimes, as with a spell, the consequences may be very clear. Other times, they're not clear at all. This axis as you described it for Blades, is not set at all. This can be a complete unknown to the player prior to their roll.

Given that in trad play we assume causal effects and not introduce new significant fiction as complication, I think the consequences of failure are way more predictable than in Blades, even though there would be some amount of judgement calls.

And yes... that may be the case for the character. But again, that's where sim-immersionism has a priority other than gamism.

Yes.

Because again, I think your experience with the game is flawed in some way. Based on what you've shared of your play, I think your GM is smuggling in practices better suited to more trad-based play.

If you have something supporting your assertions here, either principles from the text that would counter those I've already shared (which would be very odd) or examples of actual play, share them. But just saying "I think this" really doesn't do a lot of work here.

No,, this has nothing to do with "flawed experience" if anything, my GM's tendency to not wildly extrapolate via no-myth lessens the issue rather than magnifies it. In Blades with every roll something bad can happen, there is no local myth to limit the GM about what it can be, nor there is no imperative to for the consequence to be causal in the fiction. So basically for every roll there is a significant chance for the GM to get to fiat some new fiction on the spot. How can you not see it, it is basic building block of the game?

Sure, but D&D is the game many are mentioning. If you have a different game in mind that is more clear on its processes, then please bring it up as an example.

I am not talking about any specific game text. I talk about how people actually play games.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So that sort of high level myth is not what I am talking about. I mean local details of the situation being predetermined or not. In trad play they are, in narrativism often not.

This is why I specifically mentioned Dogs in the Vineyard. It deals with that exact kind of stuff. Who are the people in town, what are their connections, how has sin settled in here.

So no... as has already been said, narrativism is not synonymous with low myth.

Yes. And I think to me immersion is the highest priority in a RPG, so things that harm it need to bring some rather significant benefits in other areas to be worth the cost.

Then I find your initial assessment of the post by @Manbearcat to be misplaced. And you seem to know it here. So why object?

Yes, I know how it works. And to me that tow axis system seems way more complicated than single axis one.

But there is a second axis in D&D... it's just amorphous. Sometimes we know what it will be, other times we don't, and when we don't, the GM can decide with a pretty broad amount of authority.

You could do that, but those are not recommended difficulties by the game. And personally I only use the six, as I feel I can have a reasonable mental model of what of the six steps corresponds to what sort of fictional situations, but I cannot really do that with a thirty step scale.

I mean, I think a 6 step scale is about twice as hard to manage as a three step scale, and that's before we even consider the additional potential DCs. But sure, preference will vary here.

That would be a houserule, and were I using such (I am not) I certainly would have informed the players of it.

Given that in trad play we assume causal effects and not introduce new significant fiction as complication, I think the consequences of failure are way more predictable than in Blades, even though there would be some amount of judgement calls.

This is where you tip your hand a bit, and it seems your take on these games is not based on a lot of practical experience or an accurate reading of them.

Yes.

So again, why object to a description of a playstyle that is more concerned with gamism than sim-immersion?

No,, this has nothing to do with "flawed experience" if anything, my GM's tendency to not wildly extrapolate via no-myth lessens the issue rather than magnifies it. In Blades with every roll something bad can happen, there is no local myth to limit the GM about what it can be, nor there is no imperative to for the consequence to be causal in the fiction. So basically for every roll there is a significant chance for the GM to get to fiat some new fiction on the spot. How can you not see it, it is basic building block of the game?

I can only go by what you share, and what you've shared has shown that your GM has an incomplete understanding of Blades at best. And your comments do nothing to make me think otherwise, or that your understanding is very strong.

I am not talking about any specific game text. I talk about how people actually play games.

Then provide examples of play to show examples of your assertions.

Also... sometimes, people actually play games as they are described in the text. Crazy, I know.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This is why I specifically mentioned Dogs in the Vineyard. It deals with that exact kind of stuff. Who are the people in town, what are their connections, how has sin settled in here.

So no... as has already been said, narrativism is not synonymous with low myth.

Perhaps. Then again, whilst some specific sort of details in DitV are fixed, many others remain intentionally vague. But it is game I don't have much familiarity with, and even less interest in.

Then I find your initial assessment of the post by @Manbearcat to be misplaced. And you seem to know it here. So why object?

I am not sure I quite understood @Manbearcat's post. Which of course is the perfectly normal state of affairs.

I can only go by what you share, and what you've shared has shown that your GM has an incomplete understanding of Blades at best. And your comments do nothing to make me think otherwise, or that your understanding is very strong.

If you think I am wrong, it would make it more convincing were you to explain what I am wrong about and why. That you do not so, to me implies to me it might be you who is wrong, as you seem to be blind to the obvious and significant GM input pathways the game relies on for its basic functionality.

Then provide examples of play to show examples of your assertions.

I am not sure about what specifically you want examples of, nor I understand why you need them. After all, you have several times assured that you're well familiar with heavy myth trad approaches. (Which I have no significant reason to doubt.)

 

[zakael19]

Let's go with Blades in the Dark, since you seem to have at least a bit of familiarity with it.

The book explicitly tells the GM what to do. This information is meant to be shared with the players. I'll reference a few sections and the most relevant bits (these are paraphrased and incomplete):

- GM Actions (pg. 188)

• Telegraph Trouble Before It Strikes- set up the actual threat that's looming so people know what's at risk, they understand the stakes
• Follow Through- deliver on that threat- you've established what's at stake, now have that threat manifest

GM Principles (pg. 193)

• Be a fan of the PCs- they have enough enemies, don't be one yourself- portray the world honestly, things are stacked against them
• Let everything flow from the fiction- let things snowball based on the starting situation and then what the characters do- NPCs react based on their goals and methods- you don't need to "manage" the game

GM Best Practices (pg. 194)

• Earn the trust of the group- be a supportive and fair advocate of the integrity of the fiction- do not set up for particular outcomes- when you advocate for something the players will know that it's based on this integrity, not to get your way or to arrange situations to your liking
• Lead an interesting conversation- ask questions and prompt ideas- be curious about what the players have to say
• Create an atmosphere of inquiry at the table- play to find out - don't decide outcomes
• Help the players use the game system- encourage them to pursue the characters' goals- don't let them flounder- encourage them to describe opportunities they have and how to pursue those opportunities
• Don't block- it's not your job to say "you can't do that"- you are not the sole authority of what the characters can and cannot do- show them that there's a path to what they want to do
• Keep the meta channel open- when you portray an NPC, tell the players things that are going unsaid- invite them to ask questions and gather information- the characters have a broad range of senses and intuitions to bring to bear in the fiction; the players have only the narrow channel of your few words- help them out by sharing what they might suspect, intuit, feel, and predict
• Be a curious explorer of the game in play- your game is a cool TV show and you're its biggest fan- ask the players questions and let them contribute- these questions will often lead to goals, approaches, and rolls
• Play Goal-Forward- poll the group about what goal they're pursuing, at all levels of play; the campaign, the session, this moment- let the players lead where things go next
• Be aware of potential fiction vs. established fiction- potential fiction is everything in your head that you haven't put into play yet- it's a cloud of possible things, organized according to the current circumstances

GM Bad Habits (pg. 197)

• Don't Overcomplicate things- the consequences you inflict on a failure or success with consequence will usually be obvious since the action has already been established- but sometimes you'll draw a blank- in those moments, it's best to keep it simple- Heat or Harm are easily inflicted consequences- not everything needs to be a brutal reversal of fortune- keep it simple- ask the players for their input if you feel stuck
• Don't hold back on what they earn- they get what they earned- don't weasel out of it- things will be tough enough on them without your thumb on the scale
• Don't say no- There's almost always a better answer than "no" or "you can't do that"- work with the players to find a way to what they want to see happen

There are more in the book, and each of the above is only a summary. I hope you can see how this advice helps guide the GM on how to approach things, both in the inflicting of consequences, and also in other aspects of the game.




No. The statement is that such play is less concerned with the game concerns that @Manbearcat talks about.



Why not? What's gained by keeping such things from them? What's lost?



I'd say it's more proof that different folks will have different levels of acceptance about varying levels of focus on functional gameful space.



I don't really think so. That there may be decisions made that the players may not expect prior, generally speaking, all of them should be following from the fiction, and generally adhering to the kinds of principles listed above. Meaning that they generally support the players and what they're attempting in some way... they're not intended to thwart or confound the players.



Well, look at the OP for a microcosm of what we're talking about. Look how much influence the GM has with the Alarm spell. Just all the factors that are entirely up to the GM. Then look at Aethereal Premonitions.

Now, apply that across the entirety of play. That's what I've largely been trying to point out with my posts. You mistakenly said something about the OP being anti-trad and that I agree... but that's not the case. I'm not anti-trad. I am just capable of looking at it and seeing how dependent it is on the GM for so much of its function.



So again, let's compare to Blades in the Dark. In that game, the GM determines the Position of any possible action as Controlled, Risky, or Desperate. So that's three tiers that can be applied that indicate the risk and difficulty of any action. And... importantly... per the text, these are negotiable! Yes, the GM has final say... but the text encourages the players to state their case if they think the Position should be different, and it encourages the GM to listen to what they say and to consider it.

With D&D and similar games where the GM is to set a DC or Target Number... these are usually much more open ended. This means there are far more tiers that can be applied. Yes, the book gives some generic ratings of difficulties and DCs, but there's far more blurriness between these tiers. Also, I don't think it says anything about these being negotiable. Over time, keeping track of DCs that are set



Then this is the player saying "I'm less concerned about the game than I am about feeling as my character would" or what have you.

This is like saying that players of narrativist focused games are less concerned with simulation! Yes... of course!



I don't think this is true at all. The GM in D&D is authorized by the rules to essentially do whatever they want. Yes, there are the rules and processes, and here are there some suggestions on how to use those, and what to do when they don't apply... but there's also tons of reminders that ultimately, it's up to the GM.

There is also no set list of principles, and those there are are scattered throughout the book. Many will cite this as a strength rather than a flaw because it "let's players make the game their own"... and okay, fine. But the tradeoff of that is that there's no clearly defined approach to play. There's a ton of grey area... and individual GMs are going to take those grey areas and fill them up with their own ideas, many of which may not be shared with players.

I don't think you guys are being honest about this comparison... or else your experience with narrativist play is insufficient to have learned all this, or perhaps more likely, run by someone influenced too much by more trad-play tendencies of other games rather than the principles of play offered by these games.

Also almost every question on the BITD subreddit or discord from GMs about how to handle stuff winds up being answered first with "have you read the GM principles and Practices?" because the vast majority of the time the answer to a "how do I handle...?" or "what do I do if...?" is right there.

 

[zakael19]

Perhaps. Then again, whilst some specific sort of details in DitV are fixed, many others remain intentionally vague. But it is game I don't have much familiarity with, and even less interest in.



I am not sure I quite understood @Manbearcat's post. Which of course is the perfectly normal state of affairs.



If you think I am wrong, it would make it more convincing were you to explain what I am wrong about and why. That you do not so, to me implies to me it might be you who is wrong, as you seem to be blind to the obvious and significant GM input pathways the game relies on for its basic functionality.



I am not sure about what specifically you want examples of, nor I understand why you need them. After all, you have several times assured that you're well familiar with heavy myth trad approaches. (Which I have no significant reason to doubt.)

@hawkeyefan posted the full GM guidelines for BITD above. I posted an even shorter summary like 60 pages ago or more that you responded to. In both cases you suggest that your GM isn't following them. What I read of teh play you describe certainly validates that. Thus, we struggle with your assertions about narrativist play based on your time spent with BITD in that it doesn't seem to match design intent.