GM fiat - an illustration

[Crimson Longinus]

It would be a violation of the GM constraints as laid out in the game to do them in bad faith like your pointed examples. Where is the similar constraints that D&D or other conventional games lay out? Where is a defined "Be a Fan of the Characters" and what that means to play? (5.2024 finally takes a bit of steps towards this)

There are no clear principles in D&D, I admitted that pages ago. But I am not talking about D&D, I am talking about principled way of running sim-immersion traddish game. I mean "don't railroad" is pretty common principle a lot of GMs live by.

If you are making P&E decisions that are arbitrary, you're violating principles. If you draw on a score after they've done cool stuff and hit their aim/target because you "think it's too short" then you're Robbing them of what they've earned, etc. Plus the game has mechanisms to be transparent: clocks & etc.

Edit: this is why I told @FrogReaver that the most common answer to general "how do I handle this in play" questions wind up being "have you read teh GM guidance" because most of the problem play comes from violating it. Do lots of people run BITD in a very conventional game fashion with some player-input? probably!

I have read it, but a lot of it is terribly vague regarding how it applies in practice. Like for example here you said the GM should not draw out the score, but there is no structure for determining how long the score should be in the first place, how many obstacles there should be etc. The GM just decides it and often on the fly.

 

[zakael19]

There are no clear principles in D&D, I admitted that pages ago. But I am not talking about D&D, I am talking about principled way of running sim-immersion traddish game. I mean "don't railroad" is pretty common principle a lot of GMs live by.


I have read it, but a lot of it is terribly vague regarding how it applies in practice. Like for example here you said the GM should not draw out the score, but there is no structure for determining how long the score should be in the first place, how many obstacles there should be etc. The GM just decides it and often on the fly.

Score length is called out on page 125:

"A score can be long and involved or short and sweet. There might be lots of rolls and trouble, or just a few actions to resolve it. Play to find out what happens! A score doesn't need to fill one session of play every time. Let it be however long it is."

Ive had players state actions that rapidly moved things from a Critical engagement roll to their Target in like 3-4 6s or resisted 4-5s. Boom, we're done. If you want to make this transparent, the game suggests ways to use clocks. A 6 count for like "Outer security" and a second 6 count for "finding the Vault" or whatever would give players concrete targets; and allow the P&E discussion to link to finalizing the target.

On the other end, we're 2 sessions into a complex Mission in my FITD game, because they've chosen some interesting ideas and wanted to go a slow complex route to avoid notice and maximize their outcomes (it's only been like 4 obstacles though!).

I never walk into a score with a "ok, it's gonna be X long." I let the result of the Engagement roll dictate the starting position, and based on their stated actions front Threats as appropriate.

Anyway, horse beaten I think.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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?

It’s transparent in play. No one's saying that the rules are crystal clear. The book isn’t organized as well as it could be, primarily.

But the GM guidance? Most of the stuff I posted a few posts back? That advice and guidance is very clear. Very explicit in what it’s telling the GM to do. And so much of that advice revolves around being open and honest and clear about the processes of play. About being transparent.

When we’re talking about transparency, it’s about nothing being hidden from the player during play. They are told the Position and Effect before the roll. They can even advocate for a different Position and Effect based on their understanding of the situation. The stakes of the roll should be clear. They know what the outcome will be based on their roll… a 1-3 is a failure, 4-5 success with consequence, and 6 is a success. There’s no hidden DC, no dice being rolled behind a screen, nothing like that. Play is transparent. There’s no way for the GM to covertly influence play.

Unfortunately, one of the bad things about D&D being the primary game in the hobby for 50 years means that often, people equate D&D with RPGs in general. They figure that because they know D&D so well, that they know RPGs well.

This kind of thinking leads to issues because folks don’t really listen to the book. They read the rules and they understand the mechanics… but they ignore the GMing guidance. The best practices and principles and dos and don’ts. Mostly because they think they know RPGs… but really, they know D&D.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Score length is called out on page 125:

"A score can be long and involved or short and sweet. There might be lots of rolls and trouble, or just a few actions to resolve it. Play to find out what happens! A score doesn't need to fill one session of play every time. Let it be however long it is."

Ive had players state actions that rapidly moved things from a Critical engagement roll to their Target in like 3-4 6s or resisted 4-5s. Boom, we're done. If you want to make this transparent, the game suggests ways to use clocks. A 6 count for like "Outer security" and a second 6 count for "finding the Vault" or whatever would give players concrete targets; and allow the P&E discussion to link to finalizing the target.

On the other end, we're 2 sessions into a complex Mission in my FITD game, because they've chosen some interesting ideas and wanted to go a slow complex route to avoid notice and maximize their outcomes (it's only been like 4 obstacles though!).

I never walk into a score with a "ok, it's gonna be X long." I let the result of the Engagement roll dictate the starting position, and based on their stated actions front Threats as appropriate.

Anyway, horse beaten I think.

Not so sure about the horse, I think it is twitching as we're getting into something concrete here.

Yes, the score can be of any length. But how is the complexity of the fictional situation decided in the first place? It could be the engagement roll, but that's not what the rules actually say. Like how many obstacles there are? If the PCs have successfully avoided the guard dogs on the Lord Darthmoor's mansion grounds, climbed to the second floor, distracted the butler to get to the door of the treasury, on what basis will the GM decide whether there are guards on the door of the treasury? Whether the treasury door is locked? Whether the valuables in the treasury are in chests or vaults that need further actions to open? I think this is all just GM fiat, and I don't think the principles offer much help here. Yet these sort of decisions have colossal impact on the PCs' chance of success. Also, when should the GM decide these things? The rules game instruct to keep things as a "cloud of potential" so probably on the fly?

 

[zakael19]

Not so sure about the horse, I think it is twitching as we're getting into something concrete here.

Yes, the score can be of any length. But how is the complexity of the fictional situation decided in the first place? It could be the engagement roll, but that's not what the rules actually say. Like how many obstacles there are? If the PCs have successfully avoided the guard dogs on the Lord Darthmoor's mansion grounds, climbed to the second floor, distracted the butler to get to the door of the treasury, on what basis will the GM decide whether there are guards on the door of the treasury? Whether the treasury door is locked? Whether the valuables in the treasury are in chests or vaults that need further actions to open? I think this is all just GM fiat, and I don't think the principles offer much help here. Yet these sort of decisions have colossal impact on the PCs' chance of success. Also, when should the GM decide these things? The rules game instruct to keep things as a "cloud of potential" so probably on the fly?

In reaction to what the players do and roll. If your stated action is "Sam and Bilbo sneak through the mansion to the treasury" and you say "cool, the danger here is being noticed by the interior guards that your gather intel established Lord Darthmoor has on patrol" and they roll a 6 - it's done.

The Complexity of the situation should have been moderately apparent from the start. You know what tier the faction or citizenry they're contending with is; you know what sort of resources that sort of person can bring to bear is; you know the factions they're at -2 with who are likely to Interfere if it makes fictional sense to bring in as Complications; the players have done Gather Information rolls to set things up; they do Flashbacks on the fly to nail things down; & etc.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

In reaction to what the players do and roll. If your stated action is "Sam and Bilbo sneak through the mansion to the treasury" and you say "cool, the danger here is being noticed by the interior guards that your gather intel established Lord Darthmoor has on patrol" and they roll a 6 - it's done.

But how we determine how much one action declaration can accomplish? You probably wouldn't think "I sneak into Lord Darthmoor's mansion and steal all his valuables" would be just one roll, and on success the score is over with just that?

The Complexity of the situation should have been moderately apparent from the start. You know what tier the faction or citizenry they're contending with is; you know what sort of resources that sort of person can bring to bear is; you know the factions they're at -2 with who are likely to Interfere if it makes fictional sense to bring in as Complications; the players have done Gather Information rolls to set things up; they do Flashbacks on the fly to nail things down; & etc.

How? Where are the rules, where is the formula? Ultimately this is just "GM makes something up." It is a fiat.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Physical details of the place, exact details of what's going on, a lot of things. We had a long discussion about this game in some other thread a while a go.

So a vague reference to some other thread is all you have to back up your assertion? That’s pretty weak.

Exactly what’s going on is mostly established by the GM. They design the town to be beset by sin. They’re going to decide what the sin is and how it’s manifested. So I don’t really accept your assertion about “what’s going on” being vague.

The physical space of the town may be very detailed or may not. This’ll vary by GM and town, I think. But these facts do get established in play, and then inform what happens. So while I will admit it's possible that a GM can introduce a town and not have a complete map of the place already set, I also don’t think that’s really all that different from trad play. Not every town is detailed like that, and certainly larger settlements by necessity become less detailed. It doesn’t impact play negatively in any way.

You do understand that the couple of examples (like the score failing) were especially examples that I recognised as improper play according to the principles of the game?

Why would I understand that? As I said, I can only go off what you say about your game and about the game overall. The examples you’ve shared have shown there’s something off. The comments you make don’t do anything to change that.

They are not typical for how our game goes. And that I recognised them as such is because I actually understand the principles of the game. And what we were talking about here was not about those examples, it was about the very basic structures of the game.

But it reveals some serious failure to understand the basic structures of the game.

It is in the bloody rules of the game! I assume you have read them. The GM gets to fiat new complications ex nihilo on most rolls. There also is little constraint on them framing the obstacles in the first place. It is up to the GM how many obstacles (that effectively force the players to make rolls) there will be on a score and what those obstacles are. And unlike in a prepped trad game, the GM is just fiating these on the spot as well. What part of this is unclear to you?

No, the GM does not get to create new complications from nothing on most rolls. He’s bound by the fictional situation. He’s supposed to telegraph danger first so that the stakes are clear.

The players are going to choose a score. Yes, the GM will come up with obstacles, but he’s not really free to just do whatever he wants. He’s bound by the relevant factors of the score. If the crew is sneaking into an estate of a powerful family (by choosing a Stealth Score, for instance) then the GM is going to frame the obstacles accordingly… sentries, guard dogs, perhaps some ghostly guardian or other supernatural element. These will be framed by player choice.

So yeah… this is why it’s unclear to me. Because the things that you insist are true about play are obviously in contrast with what the book says. They don’t seem to take any of the GMing principles and best practices and bad habits into consideration.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

@hawkeyefan read my latest posts. I am not unaware of the principles in Blades you mention. They however do not remove the issue.

 

[zakael19]

But how we determine how much one action declaration can accomplish? You probably wouldn't think "I sneak into Lord Darthmoor's mansion and steal all his valuables" would be just one roll, and on success the score is over with just that?


How? Where are the rules, where is the formula? Ultimately this is just "GM makes something up." It is a fiat.

This is literally the Position and Effect discussion.

If you want an explicit "on a Class 3 score, there should be 4-7 obstacles, and at least one should be Desperate; 3 Standard; and 1 of them should be Limited effect" sorry.That would be constraining the players and not playing to find out.

If you want to read the GM guidelines, and the rest of the rules, and look at how the systems interlock, I think it all shows how the GM is constrained in what they do such that the players should never feel like things got Fiated in arbitrarily. Mainly because it's a running conversation on the meta channel on how and why things are happening as @hawkeyefan has pointed out so many times.

Like I said, we're beating the poor horse to death here.

 

[hawkeyefan]

@hawkeyefan read my latest posts. I am not unaware of the principles in Blades you mention. They however do not remove the issue.

If you are aware of them, then the issue instead seems to be incorporating them into play.