GM fiat - an illustration

[AbdulAlhazred]

@AbdulAlhazred

Would it be correct to characterize the type of game you bring up as quite distinct from blades in the dark? im kind of getting that vibe but not sure. I’m sure im guilty at times of lumping some things together that shouldn’t be and wondering if this is one.

I consider them to be kin, but they are pretty different. Maybe at or near opposite ends of the spectrum of Narrativist games. It really is a pretty large area.

 

[thefutilist]

And how do you test that character’s honor?

Stuff happens in the fiction and maybe it inspires the player to have their character break their code.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Stuff happens in the fiction and maybe it inspires the player to have their character break their code.

How is that a test? There’s no chance for an unwanted outcome.

 

[thefutilist]

How is that a test? There’s no chance for an unwanted outcome.

Well if the player would prefer not to break their code but the demands of inspiration brought about by the fiction force them to for authenticities sake.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Well, that is a caracature of play. You may or may not like it, but it's simply not true that the dice just play the character. It's not even partly true.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well if the player would prefer not to break their code but the demands of inspiration brought about by the fiction force them to for authenticities sake.

How can they be forced to? If they can be forced, how is that different from the kind of game that was being objected to?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

I think that, at least in AW, this feels right. AW doesn't have any mechanical input on what the characters feel, or what they decide to do. In fact the game states flat out you are expected to change playbooks at least once during a campaign. This is pretty much just up to the player, though the GM probably will get involved in working out the details of your new situation.

1KA is different, the world is in chaos, but society is intact. It is more focused on how your character relates to the events and pressures of the situation. You are never really in control, but you can try to assert yourself, define yourself in your deeds, etc. Mechanically you have to check your attachments, but you do remain in control of how they are defined.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well, that is a caracature of play. You may or may not like it, but it's simply not true that the dice just play the character. It's not even partly true.

It’s also not really a loss of agency since you as a player have indicated what you want to see tested in play. That means it’s on the line… there’s risk involved in that, and it won’t always be up to you.

Sure, in D&D where so much is up to the DM, it would violate the player’s small area of agency in the form of character autonomy… but that’s just because there’s such relatively little player input beside that.

It’s a flawed way of looking at it as the two games function differently, with the players focusing on different things.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well if the player would prefer not to break their code but the demands of inspiration brought about by the fiction force them to for authenticities sake.

But what is authentic? This is all just letting the player explicate what they think. Honestly it's straight up neo-trad/OC type play. You define the character and then just exemplify it in play. If there's a character arc, it consists of what you want it to be. Some of our trad play in the '80s evolved into this sort of stuff. Nothing wrong with it, just one type of play.

I would say that this type of play has it's own relationship to the OP's views on Fiat. In general the players will define an arc of play and the GM declares facts relative to that. Things like time and distance and such are not really useful as arbiters of success, more as color.

 

[thefutilist]

How can they be forced to? If they can be forced, how is that different from the kind of game that was being objected to?

Because the player chose it as an artistic decision. In that sense it isn't really unwelcome and the truly unwelcome would be not being able to choose.