GM fiat - an illustration

[hawkeyefan]

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.

What’s intentionally vague in DitV?

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

There were a couple of big words in there, I guess.

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 have. Your examples of play seem to deviate from the book. The claims you make also don’t seem supported by the text or by actual play experience. You don’t back up your assertions with any kind of reasoning, like your statement above about DitV.

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.)

Yes, and I have provided examples from games I’ve run of that type. I used examples from Mothership and 5e both in this thread. I’ve mentioned other games, too. If you ask me questions about these games, my answers will ring true if you’ve read the books. If you ask me to describe my play, it’ll be recognizable if you’re familiar with these games.

 

[thefutilist]

I want to return to a play example I used previously if anyone is interested.

So the situation is that there's this hitman, he's meticulous, methodical and the enforcer for what's basically corporate organized crime. He lives a solitary, disciplined life. He meets this party girl and she's a low level criminal, is chaotic and outgoing. They start a relationship. Later she learns that he's a hitman, she sends a text saying wtf?? and he says he'll explain in person. So he goes to her flat to speak with her.

The girl is the GM and the player is the hitman. We're both excited to see how this scene plays out.

The GM narrates the hitman arriving and the particulars of the girls apartment. The GM may have narrated a load of incidental stuff as well. Her ashtray is overflowing with freshly smoked Malborough lites. It's a bit of a crummy apartment building so you can hear it loud when the trains pass.


GM: So you're in her apartment late at night and she's been crying.

Player: She's sitting on the couch and I'm standing up, keeping my distance, maybe pacing a little bit 'I know what you must be thinking. What you've got to understand is that after I left the army I didn't now what to do. I just kind of fell into this.

GM; 'You just fell into killing people?'

Player: 'Well since meting you I've been. More alive I guess. I'm rethinking things, I'm not saying I'm right....so are we finished?'

GM: She gets up off the couch, walks over and embraces you.

Player: I hold her tight

---------------

So before the scene, what's at stake is never formally acknowledged. As participants we're both excited to see what happens and we probably have questions floating around in our heads 'is she going to remain his lover?' is probably the big one. We don't know how it's going to go though, all manner of things could happen.

The games rules, the principles, are that you play a character by thinking about what the other person has just said and how it might effect the character you're playing, then you respond.


So some questions anyone can answer:

1) The GM is playing the girlfriend and is resolving stuff by the method just mentioned. Does that effect the players agency? if so why and what's a better way to do it?

2) The player is also resolving stuff by the method just mentioned, is that effecting the GMs agency?

3) If yes to the first and no the second, what's the difference?

4) Does the fact I've been explicit about the game rules make the game less arbitrary, make the process of play transparent?

5) If anyone doesn't find it transparent but 'does' find Apocalypse World transparent, what's the difference?

 

[Maxperson]

Out of interest Max, have you (as the primary or even sole DM) ever considered/feared whether much of your game is illusionism? This phrase may seem crude but it gets the job done - like a self-masturbatory exercise in a way.

None of it is illusionism. That's a form of railroading and I don't use it.

Mainly because in D&D we as DMs have rather looser constraints fewer principles that help steer us or the storyline.

EDIT: To answer the question for myself - I have, hence my attempts to inject different techniques/ideas from some of the other games talked about online.

We have looser constraints by the rules, but the social contract constrains us quite a bit.

 

[FrogReaver]

I want to return to a play example I used previously if anyone is interested.

So the situation is that there's this hitman, he's meticulous, methodical and the enforcer for what's basically corporate organized crime. He lives a solitary, disciplined life. He meets this party girl and she's a low level criminal, is chaotic and outgoing. They start a relationship. Later she learns that he's a hitman, she sends a text saying wtf?? and he says he'll explain in person. So he goes to her flat to speak with her.

The girl is the GM and the player is the hitman. We're both excited to see how this scene plays out.

The GM narrates the hitman arriving and the particulars of the girls apartment. The GM may have narrated a load of incidental stuff as well. Her ashtray is overflowing with freshly smoked Malborough lites. It's a bit of a crummy apartment building so you can hear it loud when the trains pass.


GM: So you're in her apartment late at night and she's been crying.

Player: She's sitting on the couch and I'm standing up, keeping my distance, maybe pacing a little bit 'I know what you must be thinking. What you've got to understand is that after I left the army I didn't now what to do. I just kind of fell into this.

GM; 'You just fell into killing people?'

Player: 'Well since meting you I've been. More alive I guess. I'm rethinking things, I'm not saying I'm right....so are we finished?'

GM: She gets up off the couch, walks over and embraces you.

Player: I hold her tight

---------------

So before the scene, what's at stake is never formally acknowledged. As participants we're both excited to see what happens and we probably have questions floating around in our heads 'is she going to remain his lover?' is probably the big one. We don't know how it's going to go though, all manner of things could happen.

The games rules, the principles, are that you play a character by thinking about what the other person has just said and how it might effect the character you're playing, then you respond.


So some questions anyone can answer:

1) The GM is playing the girlfriend and is resolving stuff by the method just mentioned. Does that effect the players agency? if so why and what's a better way to do it?

2) The player is also resolving stuff by the method just mentioned, is that effecting the GMs agency?

3) If yes to the first and no the second, what's the difference?

4) Does the fact I've been explicit about the game rules make the game less arbitrary, make the process of play transparent?

5) If anyone doesn't find it transparent but 'does' find Apocalypse World transparent, what's the difference?

Now don't get me wrong, i love the example and the probing questions.

One small issue regarding your rules and principles, you don't actually state what the requirements/constraints are of your response. An example, could the player say, "I make her fall in love with me".

Also, the rules and principles don't define what to do if you have 2 or more potential responses that you feel are equally likely.

 

[thefutilist]

Now don't get me wrong, i love the example and the probing questions.

One small issue regarding your rules and principles, you don't actually state what the requirements/constraints are of your response. An example, could the player say, "I make her fall in love with me".

Also, the rules and principles don't define what to do if you have 2 or more potential responses that you feel are equally likely.

Good points.

The owners of the respective characters retain full control over their characters thoughts and actions. So the player can't say 'I make her fall in love with me' because that's for the GM to decide and vice versa. (it's the same split you see in most trad games)

If two responses for a character seem equally likely then choose based on your artistic inclination.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Which RPGs are you talking about here? Just to pick two examples, Burning Wheel and Marvel Heroic RP are pretty different in their rules for consequences.

 

[FrogReaver]

Which RPGs are you talking about here? Just to pick two examples, Burning Wheel and Marvel Heroic RP are pretty different in their rules for consequences.

My understanding from all our previous discussions is that narrativist games typically mandate consequences for most player actions when the players don't get a full success on their die roll (or whatever other resolution method they are using). I couldn't name the games explicitly except for Blades in the Dark.

 

[FrogReaver]

My answers.

1) The GM is playing the girlfriend and is resolving stuff by the method just mentioned. Does that effect the players agency? if so why and what's a better way to do it?

effect the players agency - no

2) The player is also resolving stuff by the method just mentioned, is that effecting the GMs agency?

effect the GMs agency - no

3) If yes to the first and no the second, what's the difference?

n/a

4) Does the fact I've been explicit about the game rules make the game less arbitrary, make the process of play transparent?

less arbitrary - no
transparent - yes

5) If anyone doesn't find it transparent but 'does' find Apocalypse World transparent, what's the difference?

n/a

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes, and I have provided examples from games I’ve run of that type. I used examples from Mothership and 5e both in this thread. I’ve mentioned other games, too. If you ask me questions about these games, my answers will ring true if you’ve read the books. If you ask me to describe my play, it’ll be recognizable if you’re familiar with these games.

It's always ironically funny to me...
1: "This game is soo clear and transparent about how to play it."
New group starts playing it...
2: "You obviously played it wrong since your conclusions about the gameplay don't agree with mine."

So much for clear and transparent, eh?

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

The game book doesn't really cover when to transition from free play to a score. It doesn't give tips on if the players just want to stay in free play and do little things (mine wanted to send mail bombs, which didn't really seem to fit into the score layout).

The game book wasn't very clear on how active vs static the neighboring gangs should be toward each other, or at least if it was I didn't find that info easily.

*Also, your reddit example just sounds like people being aholes.