GM fiat - an illustration

[pemerton]

if you are militant in how you talk about these things, people are going to react with militancy.

The only thing I am militant against is obscurantism.

When I read people posting about thee players exploring the setting, for instance, I want to know what is actually happening in play.

Like, on a couple of occasions I've had the opportunity to "explore" Rome. I walked around, looked at buildings, was surprised by fountains and stairways and doorways that I wasn't expecting. I was awestruck by the Pieta.

But if I told you I had "explored" Rome when, what I had actually done, was to sit opposite a friend who answered questions I asked by reading from a Lonely Planet guide, that would be ridiculous.

If what is happening in play is that the GM is telling the players things, then I don't see why we can't talk about that. If those things are either taken wholesale from, or very closely derived, from things that the GM (or the module author, or whatever) wrote down in advance, then I don't see why we can't talk about that.

And the notion that it is dismissive to do so is absurd. It's not dismissing someone's play to set about actually describing the process that occurs when they engage in it.

I mean, here's a post where I posted my regional map for Torchbearer:

Yesterday afternoon I did my first campaign mapping for a while (since I wrote up star maps for Traveller).

I copied a 16 x 14 hex area of the GH map onto a sheet of hex paper I found in my cupboard - from the SW of the Bluff hills across to Calbut and the Griff Mountains, down to Stoink in the bottom left corner and the tip of the Gamboge Forest in the bottom right. I then marked on our settlements and adventure locations - the Wizards's Tower and Forgotten Temple Complex, the village of Nulb, and the Tower of Stars, the Moathouse and Mim's Dell. A week or so ago I was looking through the Iuz the Evil supplement and learned about the Pentress fortresses, and so also added Dour Pentress as a Religious Bastion at the edge of the Troll Fens.

This morning I wrote up a settlement list:

*Calbut - Borderland Fortress

*Riftcrag (including the five Leering Keeps on the N edge and E end of the Rift Canyon) - Borderland Fortress

*Dour Pentress - Religious Bastion

*Ogburg - Religious Bastion

*Wintershiven - Walled Town

*Rookroost - Walled Town

*Midmeadow - Busy Crossroads

*Nevond Nevnend - Busy Crossroads

*Redspan - Busy Crossroads

*Radigast City - Dilapidated Port

*Stoink - Bustling Metropolis​

The relative change in significance of Rookrost and Stoink, compared to canonical Greyhawk, reflects events in my RM campaign about 30 years ago, when one of the PCs carried an extremely virulent plague into Rookroost.

The choice to have Stoink as a Bustling Metropolis was made back in the second session of this Torchbearer campaign: I wanted the players to be able to take their PCs to a Hotel, for recovery purposes, and for reasons that now escape me opted for Stoink for this purpose. But it's not a terrible idea, given the geography.View attachment 296779

When the PCs move from place to place, I pull out my map and we all look at it to identify where the PCs are travelling to and from. Of course, in our imaginations the PCs are trudging through the Troll Fens, or sailing down a river in their jury-rigged raft, or whatever. But at the table what we're actually doing is consulting the map.

In that same thread you can also see a couple of dungeon (maps and notes) that I've posted. When the players have had their PCs explore those dungeons, I've used my notes to tell them (the players) what their PCs experience. Here's just one example of what was probably 10 or so minutes of play:

Megloss then showed them into his back room, where they had to break through the floor (which they knew to be weak and rotten) to get to the dungeon beneath. Golin used his instinct (to Always look for weak points) and succeeded at an Ob 1 Labourer test, and they found the entrance shaft beneath it. Next to the shaft was a a strange statute (pack 1), an idol of an unknown religion, a muscled humanoid with a long tongue and painted in flaking red paint. Fea-bella tried to identify it, but failed the Ob 4 Theologian test (but did open Theologian skill, and also picked up a check for camp phase) and was distracted by the sight of a corpse candle in the cave below. This required an Ob 3 Will test to avoid being lured down - the test succeeded, but only after spending persona to reroll traitors (using Elven Lore-wise).

I had already, in a previous session, referred to my notes of Megloss's house to (i) remind myself about the weakness of the floor, and (ii) inform the players of this, in accordance with the rules of the game:

The PCs went back to the house and decided to enter through the back room, that looks out over the plains and overhangs the overhang on which the house is built. I asked if they were lighting a lantern, and Golin didn't want to - he didn't want Krystal to notice any strange lights. I told the players I didn't have to roll for weather, but would do so to determine the state of the sky - they were happy with that. The roll showed it to be clear and cool, so dim light from the stars and moon, and they were happy to proceed with the extra penalty from a lack of light. Golin left one of his satchels, empty of everything but a pouch, next to the house, so as not to take a penalty to Dungeoneer checks. The Dungeoneer check to get the two of them to the back of the house failed anyway, leaving Golin hungry and thirsty too.

From their new vantage point, they could see shuttered windows, and Fea-bella opened the shutters with an Ob 1 Criminal test. They could see the dusty floor inside, and the roof in disrepair. Golin, suspicious of dust since his experience of explosive powders in Mim's workroom, decided to look more closely, and succeeded at his Ob 3 Scout test - which both advanced his Scout to 3, and revealed that the floor would collapse if walked on. Golin was keen for them to have somewhere where they could eat, before another condition clocked on, and so used his Instinct to work out where the floor was weak (and hence where it wasn't). This succeeded, and climbed into the room and ate some food resting on a solid bit of floor near the back wall.

With this existing knowledge, Golin's player was able to declare actions that fit the fiction, namely, breaking through the floor.

I then consulted my notes, and prompted by them described the small statute that the PCs could see. Fea-bella's player then declared her desire to recognise it. That enlivens a test, which was failed, which then requires a GM decision: either success with a condition (as happened when Golin's player failed the Dungeoneer test for the two PCs to enter Megloss's dusty back room); or a twist. I opted for a twist, and then consulted my list of twists, and opted for the Corpse Candle.

This use of prep is a difference between (say) Torchbearer and Burning Wheel, and also (I would suggest) between Torchbearer and Dungeon World.

The prep itself was informed by aspects of PC builds: the NPC Megloss was introduced into the shared fiction by Fea-bella's player (as the PC's enemy), and the core of the dungeon beneath Megloss's house was built around themes of Elven dreaming and Elven nightmares, that Fea-bella's player had made central to the game.

But there were also standard dungeon self-referential elements ("clues") - eg the statuette was a clue to a demon trapped in a room in the dungeon - as well as aspects that simply seemed to me like they would be fun/interesting for the players, like the viewing throne.

Now, to what extent is the goal of Torchbearer play to learn the content of the GM's notes? It's a component of play, as seen in the examples I've given of inspecting the dusty room, and inspecting the statuette. Unlike classic mystery-solving play, it's not the central focus - once the players have solved whatever mysteries there are, they are then expected to do things; and the process of establishing the mysteries, which - as per what I've posted above - links to player-authored priorities for their PCs, means that there will be things the players are likely to want their PCs to do.

The rules systems of (i) player declared actions generating tests or conflicts, rather than GM decision-making as to whether or not they succeed, and (ii) twists on failed tests, also reduce the centrality of the GM's notes/prep. These serve as a platform or starting point; but the crux and highlights of play are not the mystery- or puzzle-solving.

 

[pemerton]

I think the sort of "the character tries to win, so the player tries to win" you describe works better in a game where the rules are simulationistic in a way that the character and player risk analysis and choices can be roughly analogous. In my experience more narrative games often have things that break such symmetry.

Odd. I find that "simulationist" games break down easily - for instance, my Rolemaster group had all sorts of "gentlemen's agreements" in place to prevent overpowering or just broken options.

Whereas in Burning Wheel, or Torchbearer 2e, with their clear rules about when tests are to be made and what happens when a test fails, do not break down when the players push hard in pursuit of their PCs' goals.

When it comes to versions of D&D, I find AD&D closer to RM - it is quite fragile outside of its core focus of dungeon crawling; whereas 4e D&D, because of its universal resolution framework, is more like BW or TB2e.

 

[pemerton]

You don't say it's lesser but you imply it's less real. And for those like me who value that feeling of being there in the moment and the emotional immersion in character and situations that's frankly worse.

I was using language over 90 percent of gamers instantly get when I talk to them

This is like arguing that everyone knows cars must be petrol powered, because 90% of drivers know what I'm talking about when I mention an engine; whereas they find electric motors weird and even alienating.

I mean, of course language that affirms mainstream orientations will receive mainstream recognition. That doesn't touch on @Campbell's point, though!

 

[pemerton]

to me the notion of play to find out seems to entail a more passive stance on the players part.

To the best of my knowledge, the phrase "play to find out" enters the lexicon of RPGing via Apocalypse World. And the role of players in Apocalypse World is as far from passive as possible! The whole game is driven by the players play of their PCs.

The point of "play to find out" is to establish a contrast with playing to see if the players can solve the puzzle/mystery that the GM has already established. To make that more concrete: every time I read a post where a poster talks about, as GM, creating a "BBEG", I know that that table is not playing to find out. Because the GM has already decided who the opponent is, and what the culmination of play will look like.

 

[soviet]

I guess 'play to find out' is really about the GM. In a heavily story-before game, the main beats are known to the GM in advance, but probably not to the players. In heavily story-now play, no-one knows the beats in advance.

 

[Bedrockgames]

This is like arguing that everyone knows cars must be petrol powered, because 90% of drivers know what I'm talking about when I mention an engine; whereas they find electric motors weird and even alienating.

I mean, of course language that affirms mainstream orientations will receive mainstream recognition. That doesn't touch on @Campbell's point, though!

that is not a good analogy

 

[Bedrockgames]

The only thing I am militant against is obscurantism.

When I read people posting about thee players exploring the setting, for instance, I want to know what is actually happening in play.

Like, on a couple of occasions I've had the opportunity to "explore" Rome. I walked around, looked at buildings, was surprised by fountains and stairways and doorways that I wasn't expecting. I was awestruck by the Pieta.

But if I told you I had "explored" Rome when, what I had actually done, was to sit opposite a friend who answered questions I asked by reading from a Lonely Planet guide, that would be ridiculous.

If what is happening in play is that the GM is telling the players things, then I don't see why we can't talk about that. If those things are either taken wholesale from, or very closely derived, from things that the GM (or the module author, or whatever) wrote down in advance, then I don't see why we can't talk about that.

And the notion that it is dismissive to do so is absurd. It's not dismissing someone's play to set about actually describing the process that occurs when they engage in it.

I mean, here's a post where I posted my regional map for Torchbearer:
When the PCs move from place to place, I pull out my map and we all look at it to identify where the PCs are travelling to and from. Of course, in our imaginations the PCs are trudging through the Troll Fens, or sailing down a river in their jury-rigged raft, or whatever. But at the table what we're actually doing is consulting the map.

In that same thread you can also see a couple of dungeon (maps and notes) that I've posted. When the players have had their PCs explore those dungeons, I've used my notes to tell them (the players) what their PCs experience. Here's just one example of what was probably 10 or so minutes of play:
I had already, in a previous session, referred to my notes of Megloss's house to (i) remind myself about the weakness of the floor, and (ii) inform the players of this, in accordance with the rules of the game:

​

With this existing knowledge, Golin's player was able to declare actions that fit the fiction, namely, breaking through the floor.

I then consulted my notes, and prompted by them described the small statute that the PCs could see. Fea-bella's player then declared her desire to recognise it. That enlivens a test, which was failed, which then requires a GM decision: either success with a condition (as happened when Golin's player failed the Dungeoneer test for the two PCs to enter Megloss's dusty back room); or a twist. I opted for a twist, and then consulted my list of twists, and opted for the Corpse Candle.

This use of prep is a difference between (say) Torchbearer and Burning Wheel, and also (I would suggest) between Torchbearer and Dungeon World.

The prep itself was informed by aspects of PC builds: the NPC Megloss was introduced into the shared fiction by Fea-bella's player (as the PC's enemy), and the core of the dungeon beneath Megloss's house was built around themes of Elven dreaming and Elven nightmares, that Fea-bella's player had made central to the game.

But there were also standard dungeon self-referential elements ("clues") - eg the statuette was a clue to a demon trapped in a room in the dungeon - as well as aspects that simply seemed to me like they would be fun/interesting for the players, like the viewing throne.

Now, to what extent is the goal of Torchbearer play to learn the content of the GM's notes? It's a component of play, as seen in the examples I've given of inspecting the dusty room, and inspecting the statuette. Unlike classic mystery-solving play, it's not the central focus - once the players have solved whatever mysteries there are, they are then expected to do things; and the process of establishing the mysteries, which - as per what I've posted above - links to player-authored priorities for their PCs, means that there will be things the players are likely to want their PCs to do.

The rules systems of (i) player declared actions generating tests or conflicts, rather than GM decision-making as to whether or not they succeed, and (ii) twists on failed tests, also reduce the centrality of the GM's notes/prep. These serve as a platform or starting point; but the crux and highlights of play are not the mystery- or puzzle-solving.

I was trapped at the dealership All day yesterday with bad so-if so my post may have been more curt than intense, but what is alienating isn’t that you want to focus on what is said, what the incremental exchanges between players are. It is your assurance in your answers, and your insistence that you know what other people are doing. It is also the aggression of your arguments. I think these threads could actually bring more people to the style you are advocating for if you took a slightly different approach

As for obscurantism, people will use words like explore then describe what that entails. Exploration play has a robust dialogue around how to run effective exploration adventures and there is an arsenal of tools that have been developed. But we try to use plain language when possible, evocative language that helps paint a picture of the idea (you can reject living world as magical language but it gets the point across) and we aren’t overly focused on the exact flow of the conversation (I find that stifling personally). Doesn’t work for you that is fine.

But I will point out I came into this thread mentioning an interest in the style of play you are advocating (I seven said I was thinking of running an adventure that played out like a Shaw brothers movie where the characters advanced in level during the adventure and was looking for ways to handle the dramatic twists). This would have been a good opportunity to sell me on one of the games or tools within a game you are so passionate about. But this style of discussion tends to drive people away. I might not adopt your way of analyzing systems or the language you use, but a tool is a tool and a system is a system. And I needed a method that handled the “it was X who killed your parents” in an interesting way and was open to just about anything that could be kludged to my RBRB system

 

[FrogReaver]

To the best of my knowledge, the phrase "play to find out" enters the lexicon of RPGing via Apocalypse World. And the role of players in Apocalypse World is as far from passive as possible! The whole game is driven by the players play of their PCs.

The point of "play to find out" is to establish a contrast with playing to see if the players can solve the puzzle/mystery that the GM has already established. To make that more concrete: every time I read a post where a poster talks about, as GM, creating a "BBEG", I know that that table is not playing to find out. Because the GM has already decided who the opponent is, and what the culmination of play will look like.

My contrast of passivity was solely in relation to player goals. I thought the context of my post was clear in that regard, maybe not? Anyways, the examples I keep seeing brought up in that respect are about character drama caused by conflicting internal priorities. It's even been said by some (not sure if you agree) that if there's not some mechanic that informs which priority wins out that it's not playing to find out. That's where the passivity I am talking about comes in. The player isn't actively picking and working toward some player goal in these examples, instead he's not taking a side (in regards to that internal conflict) and just 'playing to find out' (that's the passivity i talk about).

Perhaps a more palatable framing would be that the players goal is to 'play to find out which priority the character will choose'. In any event, I think what I'm contrasting should be clear now.

Also note for clarity: The AW may have extremely active players in other ways, I'm not making any comment about that, just in relation to the above.

 

[FrogReaver]

Whereas in Burning Wheel, or Torchbearer 2e, with their clear rules about when tests are to be made and what happens when a test fails, do not break down when the players push hard in pursuit of their PCs' goals.

Let's zoom in here for a moment. Would it not be more precise to say, they tell you when tests are made but instead of telling you explicitly what happens when a test fails, they instead set up constraints and have the GM make up something that happens within those constraints?

 

[darkbard]

As for obscurantism, people will use words like explore then describe what that entails. Exploration play has a robust dialogue around how to run effective exploration adventures and there is an arsenal of tools that have been developed. But we try to use plain language when possible, evocative language that helps paint a picture of the idea (you can reject living world as magical language but it gets the point across) and we aren’t overly focused on the exact flow of the conversation (I find that stifling personally).

But it doesn't seem like you are using any robust analysis in this argument, which seems to rest on the rhetoric of falling back upon vagaries disguised by your claims of natural language. What, beyond revealing what is written in the GM's notes, does your toolbox of exploration analysis reveal about the process of your play specifically? Again, as @pemerton notes above, there is nothing inherently wrong about gameplay that is based upon a GM revealing their notes being the focus of play! Except you oppose this characterization as somehow demeaning (not capturing "the magic") on a personal level.

But I will point out I came into this thread mentioning an interest in the style of play you are advocating (I seven said I was thinking of running an adventure that played out like a Shaw brothers movie where the characters advanced in level during the adventure and was looking for ways to handle the dramatic twists). This would have been a good opportunity to sell me on one of the games or tools within a game you are so passionate about. But this style of discussion tends to drive people away. I might not adopt your way of analyzing systems or the language you use, but a tool is a tool and a system is a system. And I needed a method that handled the “it was X who killed your parents” in an interesting way and was open to just about anything that could be kludged to my RBRB system

I doubt you will ever find satisfaction of this kind from these arguments, largely because, to this observer, at least, you refuse to confront the actual processes at play in your game. When your participation boils down to opposing an argument as reductionist because you object to how that makes you feel rather than what insights it may offer, how can you hope to profit from these discussions?