GM fiat - an illustration

[hawkeyefan]

Here is a section from the GM Best Practices chapter of Blades in the Dark.



@Crimson Longinus I think you may find this section particularly relevant to the ongoing Blades in the Dark discussions.

I posted about that section in response to you, much earlier in the thread.

Here, post 2272

Yes, I ma quite familiar with that paragraph. It quite clearly illustrates the vagueness of myth in Blades compared to more trad approach. But like the prep in trad game this "cloud of potential" is also mainly created by the GM, and it is the GM who chooses what about it to actualise. But they really are doing this on their own whim. Are there guards dogs to be avoided? GM decides. Are there statues that help you sneak through the yard? The GM decides. Are there fancy locks that need to be picked? The GM decides. Etc. etc. And as this all is decided on the fly, instead of being predetermined, there really is no objective measure of when the score is "finished."

And I am absolutely sure, that to most GMs how well the party is doing overall, will impact what the GM will frame next. Like if they do super well early on, the GM will be more willing to frame more obstacles than if they did terribly early on. Because there is not any objective benchmark for how much there should be, not even a self imposed one in form of binding prep.

This is poppycock.

It requires a willful ignorance of things which have repeatedly been sited to you.

But let’s just set aside the arguing for a moment. What is your point?

Is it that Blades is more railroady than trad play? Or something else?

 

[FrogReaver]

This is poppycock.

It requires a willful ignorance of things which have repeatedly been sited to you.

But let’s just set aside the arguing for a moment. What is your point?

On a personal note: I am done engaging with anyone in this thread that resorts to this kind of language.

 

[hawkeyefan]

On a personal note: I am done engaging with anyone in this thread that resorts to this kind of language.

Fair enough.

When someone keeps insisting on something, and is then offered additional information that should inform their thinking, and chooses to ignore that information entirely and continue their flawed assertions… well, poppycock is about as charitable as I can get.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sorry I may have missed it. I'm just saying, in 1KA, for example, if I do something significant that impacts the trajectory of my character, I almost certainly need to resist or indulge an attachment, or maybe some other move. I can't just say "I stab him in the back". The dice could dictate "no, you aren't able to overcome your sense of honor" or whatever.

This is the sort of game where I would just hand the dice and character sheet to the GM so they can randomly autoplay my character and I would walk away and go do something where my input is actually needed.

 

[FrogReaver]

This is the sort of game where I would just hand the dice and character sheet to the GM so they can randomly autoplay my character and I would walk away and go do something where my input is actually needed.

I get the sentiment but I don’t think this is actually helping discourse either. I imagine actual play is probably quite a bit more nuanced and interesting than you are making it out to be from that single blurb.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I get the sentiment but I don’t think this is actually helping discourse either. I imagine actually play is probably quite a bit more nuanced and interesting than you are making it out to be from that single blurb.

I'm sure it is, but this is the sort of mechanic I loathe, especially if it is prominent part of the game. It robs my agency over the things I find most important and compelling to decide as player in a roleplaying game. There obviously are things players can decide in this sort of game, but what I care about the most has been annihilated. But of course what I care about the most is subjective, and other people do not need to share my sentiments about what is important in RPGs.

 

[thefutilist]

Sorry I may have missed it. I'm just saying, in 1KA, for example, if I do something significant that impacts the trajectory of my character, I almost certainly need to resist or indulge an attachment, or maybe some other move. I can't just say "I stab him in the back". The dice could dictate "no, you aren't able to overcome your sense of honor" or whatever.

It was this post

T

Post in thread 'GM fiat - an illustration'

Apr 14, 2025

I would parse it a bit differently. The rules of 1KA include, effectively, 'no turtling'. Beyond that the game structure is such that, assuming the GM is doing their job, turtling will not actually benefit the characters. Nobunaga is coming, war is coming, nobody will be able to sit it out. At best doing so will be as hard and dangerous as taking a side.

Yeah but is the goal of the player the same as the character? To tie this into what @FrogReaver said.


So I'm playing Apocalypse World. One of the things I'm interested in seeing is if Midnight will ever actually face her...

• thefutilist

• 
• 

I give an example of what I mean by 'play to find out'. The player makes a decision to significantly alter the characters priorities based on what's occurring in the fiction.

Which seems to conflict massively with what you're saying. Which is that the mechanics should determine that sort of thing.

Or maybe, because the mechanics don't determine that sort of thing it's kind of incidental to the game.

Don't spare my feelings, if you think it's OC or trad stuff then say. I'm just trying to find the line that divides us.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Tying this thought back to the goals part of the discussion. Your scenario above and the generalization of it neither seem to entail a player goal (other than ‘see what happens’ if one would even count something like that as a player goal).

So the question really boils down to is there a player goal in that scenario and if so what? And if not does that say anything about the gamism of such a game?

Note: I make no claim or even have concrete thoughts about whether gamism is good or bad. This isn’t a trap or gotcha. I’m genuinely curious.

Sure. I would say that characters have goals, and players have an agenda, which rests on the use of rules/principles. One of those is advocating for their character, while playing it with integrity in an RP sense. 1KA is not very gamist, but the PCs have attachments which need to be managed, gear, and a personal military force (section).

Essentially the player goal in 1KA is to enact a story of Sengoku Era characters at war in a brutal environment of merciless conflict. What is your fate? Who are you? It's a VERY stripped down kind of game. Much more so than games like Dungeon World.

 

[thefutilist]

I'm sure it is, but this is the sort of mechanic I loathe, especially if it is prominent part of the game. It robs my agency over the things I find most important and compelling to decide as player in a roleplaying game. There obviously are things players can decide in this sort of game, but what I care about the most has been annihilated. But of course what I care about the most is subjective, and other people do not need to share my sentiments about what is important in RPGs.

This is my feeling as well. In game about honor for instance, you can't have an honor roll, you need to leave that part to player fiat.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This is my feeling as well. In game about honor for instance, you can't have an honor roll, you need to leave that part to player fiat.

And how do you test that character’s honor?