GM fiat - an illustration

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Yeah, that's fine. A lot of things are left up to the GM to decide organically based on situation in a lot of RPGs. I like and prefer that. But then let's recognise that the things that have most fundamental impact to the success of the score in Blades in the Dark relies on such decisions. I have no issue with this, I would just prefer if people would stop pretending that narrative games are somehow not dependent and heavily influenced on GM decisions, just like other RPGs.

@hawkeyefan in particular has accused others of being unaware of how the games they play actually function. To me this seems like projection at this point.

 

[zakael19]

Yeah, that's fine. A lot of things are left up to the GM to decide organically based on situation in a lot of RPGs. I like and prefer that. But then let's recognise that the things that have most fundamental impact to the success of the score in Blades in the Dark relies on such decisions. I have no issue with this, I would just prefer if people would stop pretending that narrative games are somehow not dependent and heavily influenced on GM decisions, just like other RPGs.

@hawkeyefan in particular has accused others of being unaware of how the games they play actually function. To me this seems like projection at this point.

No, no; the things that have the most fundamental impact to teh success of the score is what the players decide to try to do. The GM then has an open discussion about how they understand the situation, and what the Position and Effect will be. And then somebody else jumps in with a "hey wait, we're in a warehouse district right? What if the Spider had arraigned for an explosives delivery concealed over there against the wall just waiting for us - we can blow teh whole thing open and go right in, the Cutter can fight the gang off while we break the safe open!" and you resolve that Flashback; and then go forward.

Remember the system exists to allow for "oh we planned for all this" style play so you don't waste table time.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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?

If it’s a more complex task than one roll should resolve, then you make a clock. You draw it out in the open for all to see, and you tick (or untick) it when appropriate.

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

But the GM is bound by factors like the tier of the target and the kind of score it is and, importantly, by what the players have learned through gather information rolls.

A score is a product of a lot more player input than you’re considering. Again… it seems because you’re approaching this from a much more trad mindset… that everything is up to the GM. The players choose the score… they select the target and the approach and the detail of the approach and they gather information during this process which informs the GMs decisions.

A score isn’t something that’s decided solely by the GM making it up as they go along as you’re portraying it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

A score is a product of a lot more player input than you’re considering. Again… it seems because you’re approaching this from a much more trad mindset… that everything is up to the GM. The players choose the score… they select the target and the approach and the detail of the approach and they gather information during this process which informs the GMs decisions.

A score isn’t something that’s decided solely by the GM making it up as they go along as you’re portraying it.

I know all this. Except it still amounts to "GM makes up how many obstacles you face based on same vague ideas based on the fiction" Which is exactly the sort of decision making you think it arbitrary GM fiat in trad games!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No, no; the things that have the most fundamental impact to teh success of the score is what the players decide to try to do. The GM then has an open discussion about how they understand the situation, and what the Position and Effect will be. And then somebody else jumps in with a "hey wait, we're in a warehouse district right? What if the Spider had arraigned for an explosives delivery concealed over there against the wall just waiting for us - we can blow teh whole thing open and go right in, the Cutter can fight the gang off while we break the safe open!" and you resolve that Flashback; and then go forward.

Is the warehouse outer wall directly next to the room where the vault is, or do the characters need to traverse through several rooms to get to it? How is this decided? What obstacles those rooms might have, if any? How is this decided? Are the valuables free to be taken once the vault is opened, or are they in chests that need further opening? How is this decided? Etc, etc.

Yes, of course the player actions have impact, like in every game. And the GM framing the opposition has impact, like in every game!

 

[zakael19]

Is the warehouse outer wall directly next to the room where the vault is, or do the characters need to traverse through several rooms to get to it? How is this decided? What obstacles those rooms might have, if any? How is this decided? Are the valuables free to be taken once the vault is opened, or are they in chests that need further opening? How is this decided? Etc, etc.

Yes, of course the player actions have impact, like in every game. And the GM framing the opposition has impact, like in every game!

Gather Information rolls and questions exist to handle a lot of this (people seem to forget about these for some reason, but they're all the Read a Sitch/Person/Open your Mind to the Psychic Maelstrom questions from Apocalypse World more or less), as do Flashbacks, Downtime Actions, etc. Most of the rest of those answers are either irrelevant to the game in how it handles conflicts, or what Hawkeye said above.

Blades wants to zoom out and handle a narrative; zooming in to ask "how many chests are in the room and how locked are they" is the sort of thing I'm pretty sure the examples of play and advice specifically suggest not to do.

When my players were firebombing the guy's mansion, they chose to also breach the clearly locked and warded study (by melting through the adjacent wall); and then chose to push through the ghost-circle to acid-open the safe (the conflict here was not opening the safe, it was dealing with the Circle of Flame ghost-trap). They could've just, firebombed it and ran away. They wanted to get a bigger payout.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Gather Information rolls and questions exist to handle a lot of this (people seem to forget about these for some reason, but they're all the Read a Sitch/Person/Open your Mind to the Psychic Maelstrom questions from Apocalypse World more or less), as do Flashbacks, Downtime Actions, etc. Most of the rest of those answers are either irrelevant to the game in how it handles conflicts, or what Hawkeye said above.

Blades wants to zoom out and handle a narrative; zooming in to ask "how many chests are in the room and how locked are they" is the sort of thing I'm pretty sure the examples of play and advice specifically suggest not to do.

When my players were firebombing the guy's mansion, they chose to also breach the clearly locked and warded study (by melting through the adjacent wall); and then chose to push through the ghost-circle to acid-open the safe (the conflict here was not opening the safe, it was dealing with the Circle of Flame ghost-trap). They could've just, firebombed it and ran away. They wanted to get a bigger payout.

I think you're just dancing around the actual issue. It is not really about what exactly the obstacles are, it is that the complexity of the situation and the number of obstacles the PCs will face is up to the GM. And same for deciding positions and complications and all that. The game relies of GM's subjective and vague decision making, just like every RPG, and it is fine.

I don't understand why narrativist aficionados have so hard time admitting how their games actually work. I actually like this game. You do not need to sell me by trying to invent imaginary virtues it doesn't in reality have.

 

[zakael19]

I think you're just dancing around the actual issue. It is not really about what exactly the obstacles are, it is that the complexity of the situation and the number of obstacles the PCs will face is up to the GM. And same for deciding positions and complications and all that. The game relies of GM's subjective and vague decision making, just like every RPG, and it is fine.

I don't understand why narrativist aficionados have so hard time admitting how their games actually work. I actually like this game. You do not need to sell me by trying to invent imaginary virtues it doesn't in reality have.

We reject that it's subjective and vague. Or at least vague. The decision making is open and clear. When the player goes "hey are there servants in the kitchen? are any of them Skovlan like me?" and I go "give me a fortune roll, on a 1-3, nope - on a 4-6, yup" and they get a 5, it's clear. When they then go "ok, I want to slide on in there and see if she'll quietly pass the word to the other servants to be ready to GTFO" and I say "cool yeah, you can easily whisper to her in Skovlan and she'll be able to do warn them, but the obvious risk here is that she's going to want to call an alarm by default, how do you tackle this?" none of that is vague?

Again, the complexity of the situation is handled by tier, approach/detail, action, etc. When we go through the engagement roll, one of the core things you ask is "is this plan complex or simple? for +/- dice."

I mean sure, there's some gosh darned subjectivity here; but you can easily temper it by asking questions and acting upon the answers. Like the game tells you to do. Most of the time the complications I toss out there are things like "yeah, so like you guys know that butler you wandered into is totally going to get suspicious about the fact you're not just dropping the boxes and leaving right?" And the players are like "oh hell yeah, ok, so what we're going to do is..." They follow forward from the fiction the players created with me, or as @hawkeyefan noted threats I've previously telegraphed.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

We reject that it's subjective and vague. Or at least vague. The decision making is open and clear. When the player goes "hey are there servants in the kitchen? are any of them Skovlan like me?" and I go "give me a fortune roll, on a 1-3, nope - on a 4-6, yup" and they get a 5, it's clear. When they then go "ok, I want to slide on in there and see if she'll quietly pass the word to the other servants to be ready to GTFO" and I say "cool yeah, you can easily whisper to her in Skovlan and she'll be able to do warn them, but the obvious risk here is that she's going to want to call an alarm by default, how do you tackle this?" none of that is vague?

So on what you base this randomisation? Would it be OK for the GM just say without a roll? Say no without a roll?

Again, the complexity of the situation is handled by tier, approach/detail, action, etc. When we go through the engagement roll, one of the core things you ask is "is this plan complex or simple? for +/- dice."

Except this is definitely vague and subjective. Like there is no formula for this, it is just the GM making things up based on the general idea of the fiction.

I mean sure, there's some gosh darned subjectivity here; but you can easily temper it by asking questions and acting upon the answers. Like the game tells you to do. Most of the time the complications I toss out there are things like "yeah, so like you guys know that butler you wandered into is totally going to get suspicious about the fact you're not just dropping the boxes and leaving right?" And the players are like "oh hell yeah, ok, so what we're going to do is..." They follow forward from the fiction the players created with me, or as @hawkeyefan noted threats I've previously telegraphed.

But you chose to telegraph them. And you do introduce new fiction, it is literally part of the GM's job. The GM decisions are vital to the game and the mechanics prompt the GM to make decisions all the time. And yes, it is related to fiction (though more loosely than in sim games) and there are principles and guidelines based on which the decisions are made. But that is true in any approach. The difference is what those principles and guidelines are, not whether they exist at all.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I know all this.

If so, I don’t think you would say the below:

Except it still amounts to "GM makes up how many obstacles you face based on same vague ideas based on the fiction" Which is exactly the sort of decision making you think it arbitrary GM fiat in trad games!

As has already been said this is simply not true. The players choose the Score. They actively have the characters gather information, which solidifies the Score. We learn things in response to the player actions. Those things we learn feed into the Score. This is what you’re totally ignoring.

I think you're just dancing around the actual issue. It is not really about what exactly the obstacles are, it is that the complexity of the situation and the number of obstacles the PCs will face is up to the GM.

If the gather information rolls go well? The obstacles are fewer or less severe. If they go poorly… well things are worse than we thought. Then the engagement roll tells us how things are at the start of the score. And then all of this is done with the principles and best practices in mind. They inform the entire process and should not be ignored because it’s convenient for your argument.

And same for deciding positions and complications and all that. The game relies of GM's subjective and vague decision making, just like every RPG, and it is fine.

Position and Effect are, once again, meant to be clear from the situation on-screen. They’re generally obvious, and the players know what’s determining them. If they don’t, they’re meant to ask… and advocate for their opinion if it differs from the GM’s.

The above is a huge difference from a GM setting a DC and having unknown factors contributing to high it is, and not having to explain how the DC is determined if asked, and also not having to set the stakes ahead of time, or make the risk even known to the players.

If you don’t see that… if your argument is just going to be “yeah but the GM can do whatever he wants” then we’re never going to get anywhere because that’s always the case.

If you ignore what the game is specifically telling the GM to do, clearly and loudly throughout the book, and then also in a dedicated section meant solely for that purpose… the sure, you’ve got a point, Crimson.

But if you’re aware of these principles and what they mean for play and how they inform the GM’s decision-making, then ignoring them seems like an odd way to show that.