GM fiat - an illustration

[hawkeyefan]

Less severe than what? Worse than what? There is no baseline, expect what the GM decided!

No, there is clear guidance in the book. That doesn’t mean the GM is not making some decisions or having some input. No one has said that the game is free of GM input. That would be silly.

What we’re saying is that there are other parts of the process that very clearly constrain the GM. Gather Information rolls are an example of that. The fact that the players choose the Score as well as the Approach and Detail is another.

You’re just dismissing all of that as if it has no impact. This is exactly why your grasp of the game seems incomplete.

But the GM framed the situation!

So what? Again… he does so bound by several other player contributed factors.

The issue has never been GM Authority in and of itself. This is why you misread the OP as being “anti-GM fiat”. It is how multiple instances of GM Authority interact with each other without some amount of player input or system input.

Blades clearly has plenty of both.

It is not terribly common for unknown factors to affect the DC, though it can certainly happen. But most of the time I am open about DCs. And in rare cases there are unknown factors in the time of the roll, they tend to become apparent eventually. And of course in any GM the players could question the GM's judgement if it seemed be wildly off the mark to them.

But the text of the game never even says if DCs are meant to be shared or kept secret. It literally doesn’t provide direction to the GM on whether or not to disclose a DC to the players. It doesn’t talk about the pros and cons of sharing or not sharing the DC, or how that impacts play.

That’s actually pretty remarkable.

Nor does the book encourage players to advocate for their view of the situation, as Blades does in regard to Position and Effect. You say that anyone can do so… but do we really need to go far to find the myriad of responses that would foster from trad GMs, ranging from “okay, you’re right DC 15 rather than 20” to “make a note and we’ll discuss after play; for now my decision stands” and on to “you don’t like it, there’s the door, this is MY table”.

The amount of player advocacy in the Blades text absolutely dwarfs whatever tidbits appear in most trad books, by an order of magnitude.

I think that you're confused by the decision points laying in somewhat different places and the principles that guide the decision making being different. You have been talking about people being unaware of how the games they play work, but I think that actually applies to you.

But I don't think this will go anywhere.

Oh, I don’t expect you’ll adjust your view at all, no. But I’m confident that my understanding of the game and its processes and my posts about them are more compelling an argument than your unsupported assertions.

 

[hawkeyefan]

No. I think they are mostly arguing that subjective components make traditional games be fiat but subjective components don’t for narr games.

No, it’s more when GM Authority has multiple vectors that interact with each other without player input or system input.

When the GM decides the goal of play, (solve whodunnit), what the resolution of that goal will be (Colonel Mustard did it), the paths to get there (these are the clues available), how difficult those paths will be (this clue has DC 20, that one has DC 25, this one is only revealed if the players specifically declare X, etc.), whatever support or resources the players can draw on (NPCs and what they know, environmental factors like cameras, etc.), and on and on. Player input is present, but can be minimal, and can absolutely be overridden by the overwhelming amount of GM authority involved. There’s little that binds the GM to proceed in specific ways.

Contrast that with a similar situation in Blades. Yes, there will still be GM input and instances of GM authority, but they are constrained by player input and system input in many ways and at many stages.

 

[FrogReaver]

No, there is clear guidance in the book. That doesn’t mean the GM is not making some decisions or having some input. No one has said that the game is free of GM input. That would be silly.

What we’re saying is that there are other parts of the process that very clearly constrain the GM. Gather Information rolls are an example of that. The fact that the players choose the Score as well as the Approach and Detail is another.

You’re just dismissing all of that as if it has no impact. This is exactly why your grasp of the game seems incomplete.



So what? Again… he does so bound by several other player contributed factors.

The issue has never been GM Authority in and of itself. This is why you misread the OP as being “anti-GM fiat”. It is how multiple instances of GM Authority interact with each other without some amount of player input or system input.

Blades clearly has plenty of both.



But the text of the game never even says if DCs are meant to be shared or kept secret. It literally doesn’t provide direction to the GM on whether or not to disclose a DC to the players. It doesn’t talk about the pros and cons of sharing or not sharing the DC, or how that impacts play.

That’s actually pretty remarkable.

Nor does the book encourage players to advocate for their view of the situation, as Blades does in regard to Position and Effect. You say that anyone can do so… but do we really need to go far to find the myriad of responses that would foster from trad GMs, ranging from “okay, you’re right DC 15 rather than 20” to “make a note and we’ll discuss after play; for now my decision stands” and on to “you don’t like it, there’s the door, this is MY table”.

The amount of player advocacy in the Blades text absolutely dwarfs whatever tidbits appear in most trad books, by an order of magnitude.



Oh, I don’t expect you’ll adjust your view at all, no. But I’m confident that my understanding of the game and its processes and my posts about them are more compelling an argument than your unsupported assertions.

Despite the rather lengthy reply I don’t see @Crimson Longinus basic question answered. No where are the explicit rules cited that answer his questions. This despite the recurring refrain that there is CLEAR guidance for these particular questions in the book.

My own input. That the GM is constrained (more or less) has no bearing on whether a decision was made via fiat.

 

[zakael19]

Despite the rather lengthy reply I don’t see @Crimson Longinus basic question answered. No where are the explicit rules cited that answer his questions. This despite the recurring refrain that there is CLEAR guidance for these particular questions in the book.

My own input. That the GM is constrained (more or less) has no bearing on whether a decision was made via fiat.

If you're talking about the accursed "how long should a score be" I cited the page number and guidance already. If that just doesnt feel idk, concrete enough or you all want to use the intentional design theory behind the guidance there as a bludgeon to say that "haha no narrative play is just as fiated if not more so then the worst D&D" then like. Ok. Ignore all the interlocking systems and explicit shared authorities as @hawkeyefan keeps patiently reiterating to feel like you got one over the "other side."

 

[FrogReaver]

If you're talking about the accursed "how long should a score be" I cited the page number and guidance already. If that just doesnt feel idk, concrete enough or you all want to use the intentional design theory behind the guidance there as a bludgeon to say that "haha no narrative play is just as fiated if not more so then the worst D&D" then like. Ok. Ignore all the interlocking systems and explicit shared authorities as @hawkeyefan keeps patiently reiterating to feel like you got one over the "other side."

On the one hand I keep getting told there is clear guidance. On the other I get told that guidance isn’t concrete enough. That bothers me. If your response was, that particular point isn’t clear, but the point is really about how everything fits together then my response would be cool let’s talk about that.

I’m all for discussing how all this interconnects, but if we can’t even get past whether the guidance is actually clear on these specific concrete things then I really have doubts that such a nuanced and complex topic can actually conversed.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If you're talking about the accursed "how long should a score be" I cited the page number and guidance already.

Which actually doesn't answer it, thus proving me right.

If that just doesnt feel idk, concrete enough or you all want to use the intentional design theory behind the guidance there as a bludgeon to say that "haha no narrative play is just as fiated if not more so then the worst D&D" then like. Ok.

No one said that. I have acknowledged that D&D doesn't come with much principles. This doesn't mean that it, and games similar to it, cannot be played in principled way. Like what the hell you think all this talk about binding prep is? That is one principle, and one that limits the GM. All good gaming has some principles; it is wild to pretend that your preferred approach is somehow unique in this.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Despite the rather lengthy reply I don’t see @Crimson Longinus basic question answered. No where are the explicit rules cited that answer his questions. This despite the recurring refrain that there is CLEAR guidance for these particular questions in the book.

What questions do you think remain unaddressed? Gimme a bullet point list and I’ll answer them in kind.

My own input. That the GM is constrained (more or less) has no bearing on whether a decision was made via fiat.

So you see a decision the GM makes entirely on their own, and one that must include the player’s choice of score, the approach and detail, and any information learned via gather information moves as being the same, huh?

Is that really your argument?

Which actually doesn't answer it, thus proving me right.


No one said that. I have acknowledged that D&D doesn't come with much principles. This doesn't mean that it, and games similar to it, cannot be played in principled way. Like what the hell you think all this talk about binding prep is? That is one principle, and one that limits the GM. All good gaming has some principles; it is wild to pretend that your preferred approach is somehow unique in this.

What game are you thinking of in particular? Or what play style? What are the other principles that guide the GM?

We know you’re in favor of predetermined setting or scenario “facts”. What other principles guide your play? Where did these principles come from?

I mean… so far the strongest post in favor of what I think is your style was made by @Campbell … everything else has been vague talk about “organic” play and assertions about games you’re not familiar with.

So elaborate on what you do know. Describe a principled approach to play that works for you based on what you want out of play. Do it without the need to put down any other style of play.

 

[hawkeyefan]

What's not clear to me is: can the GM introduce new complications/obstacles that aren't already implicit either in (i) the planning, or (ii) the gathering of information, or (iii) the working out of clocks, or (iv) the outcomes of rolls?

I wouldn’t go so far as to say “no, never”, but I think the text leans that way. However, i think there’s a category you’ve missed: (v) what makes sense based on the situation in play. For instance, if the crew is sneaking into the headquarters of The Dimmer Sisters (basically a coven of witches), then it would make sense to introduce a supernatural obstacle as some kind of defense they’ve arranged.

The factions and setting elements play a part in this decision-making, I would say.

Beyond that, although it may make sense to do something unexpected here and there, the book tells you to telegraph danger, to give them their wins (honor info gathering, engagement, and score prep, etc.), and to portray the world honestly. And so on.

So, generally, yes I think your understanding is accurate.

 

[zakael19]

I wouldn’t go so far as to say “no, never”, but I think the text leans that way. However, i think there’s a category you’ve missed: (v) what makes sense based on the situation in play. For instance, if the crew is sneaking into the headquarters of The Dimmer Sisters (basically a coven of witches), then it would make sense to introduce a supernatural obstacle as some kind of defense they’ve arranged.

The factions and setting elements play a part in this decision-making, I would say.

Beyond that, although it may make sense to do something unexpected here and there, the book tells you to telegraph danger, to give them their wins (honor info gathering, engagement, and score prep, etc.), and to portray the world honestly. And so on.

So, generally, yes I think your understanding is accurate.

Ye old “always say what the fiction demands.” Although a lot of that is in the Faction / district details as well, like your example.

 

[Manbearcat]

I follow your example, but I don't agree with your conclusions on it.

First I would start with this, there is only 1 game. The game being played is one involving 2 participants. If the participants were both playing different games then there would be no room for a game here at all because there wouldn't be enough participants to fill more than the single game.

Now, let's talk about the nature of this singular game. And to do that I'm going to first introduce a slightly altered version of your example. Let's say everything is the same except the restrictive oath of the one player is known by everyone. Now there's no information set disparity - and yet the participants still don't have equal move spaces. The gamefulness is still fully there, it's just a different game than if the game involved 2 participants with no such oath.

Now let's talk introducing the information set-disparity of changing the oath to hidden. The same move space exists in both the hidden vs non hidden oath scenarios. The gamefulness is still fully there, it's just a different game than if that oath isn't hidden, just like it's a different game between no hidden oath and no oath at all.

Gamefulness doesn't require perfect information (see poker where there's hidden information from every player at the table). Or does your logic mean poker isn't gameful?

Your response here is telling Boxers, Kickboxers, and Mauy Thai fighters that they're all playing the same game. It is just preposterous Frogreaver. You cannot possibly believe what you've put forth in this post. There is a reason why different combat sports are demarcated by the various weaponry that they are able to deploy. I'm sorry, I know your position desperately needs for what you're saying above to be true...but there isn't a single soul within the fight game or out of it except for Frogreaver of ENW within the terrible constraints of the argument you're trying to advance that would support this position you're taking.

Kickboxing and Boxing are separated by a very small array of weaponry difference...and these are rightly categorized as different games. What I've proposed is all three of (a) a significantly larger array of weaponry difference while (b) simultaneously folding in a Calvinball element of one combatant unilaterally changing the dynamics of play without the other combatant (i) having say in the matter and (ii) being aware of the significant shift in scope and stakes.

I really hope you walk back this claim and onboard the implications into your thinking. Because if you don't, we don't have anything further to discuss. If we cannot agree on this most trivial matter, it is beyond worthless to waste the time doing this.

Finally, your Poker analog doesn't even come close to holding here. Hole Cards in various Poker games are subsets of "known unknowns." Within the space of Poker, they are not just gameable elements, but highly gameable ones (actually THE most consequentially gameable ones) which the best players in the world not only take advantage of understanding the attendant permutations of prospective hands given possible subsets of Hole Cards and Face Cards showing (theirs and their respective opponents), but they know how to "lean on" their opponents with strategic betting based on all four of (i) their position in the hand, (ii) their stack in contrast with their opponents' stacks, (iii) leveraging (secretly manipulating or hewing to) historical norms in terms of betting patterns, as well as (iv) those Hole Card + Face Card permutations above. Insofar as we can generate an analog to the fight game, Hole Cards + Position + Face Cards are more representative of your opponent’s presently unknown (but knowable) regime of future attacks in a fight, and your gameable space of detecting/intuiting that regime and then either proactively neutralizing it or setting up traps to reactively counter it.

This Hole Cards dynamic isn't even close to what I'm depicting in my exercise above. That is because what Hole Cards are not are a distorted information set that is both (i) unknowable and (ii) outside of the scope of established norms of engaging within the space to be gamed.

---

Unrelated, if I get time in the coming days (not likely), I'm going to break down:

* Position: Effect setting (which is embarassingly trivial...if you've run 5e, handling Adv/Disadv for Position should be intuitive and "adding Factors" in the BW family of games is how Effect is handled).

* Info Gathering procedures, concept space, and how this transparently builds out a Score (along with each Faction's motivations, territory, roster of personnel & assets).

* Procedurally how a Score is operationalized from these priors as well as "the DNA of the Score" from Apocalypse World's Working Gigs (which is literally the primordial ooze of Blade's Scores) through DW's Wizard Ritual and Paladin Quest (which share kindred process).

Not wasting that effort on this thread though. I'll probably do it here as that thread seems like a repository for accumulated knowledge in understanding and operationalizing the concepts and procedures that underwrite a successful game of Blades in the Dark...vs...whatever is happening here.