GM fiat - an illustration

[Bedrockgames]

Why not?

I think the analogy works better for systems than language.

Your posts have always given me a fairly clear impression of your typical approach to play. Having watched a couple of videos of @robertsconley's RPGing, with you playing in at least one of them (I can't recall if you were in the other) didn't change that impression.

If may posts are clear, then I guess my language is working fine

I've never said any of this is reinventing the wheel. I don't think I would agree with your characterization of what is going on (largely because we just seem to come at examining RPGs very differently). But I am not explaining my approach in order to have you like it. If it isn't your cup of tea, it is not your cup of tea.

I would add: if you think that my (or anyone else's) impression is mistaken, then you could try and correct that via patient explanation of what you are actually doing. Invocation of metaphor doesn't really help, though.

I do think it is mistaken, but I also have found trying to explain to you why, an unsurmountable challenge. I may just not have the ability. Clearly you dislike how I communicate. Which is fine. But that is how I communicate with people and with most people it seems to work

 

[pemerton]

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?

Sure. In Torchbearer 2e, either the PC nevertheless achieves what they want (ie succeeds) but earns a condition for their trouble (in the fiction, it took too long and they became hungry, or exhausted; or they survived the blast, but were injured; or, they found water, but it was tainted and made them sick; etc); or else the GM narrates a twist, which means the PC does not get what they want, and some new complication of the GM's choosing is introduced. The GM's choice should be informed by the fiction (to quote from AW, "make a move that follows") and by the Goal, Belief, Instinct, Creed, Relationships etc that the player has authored for their PC.

In Burning Wheel, if the test is failed then the GM narrates a consequence that thwarts the intent of the action. It may also involve the task failing, but that is not required. Again, the GM's choice should be informed by the PC's player-authored Beliefs, Instincts, Relationships, etc.

It is these methods of establishing consequences of failure that prevent the games breaking down. Rolemaster, in comparison, sometimes (even often, but not always) describes consequences in terms of events in the fiction rather than in relation to player goals/priorities for their PCs, and this is what can lead to breakdown when players push hard - because if those prescribed events are not actually adverse to the players' goals/priorities for their PCs, then players face no risk when they push hard to declare actions that might enliven those events if they fail.

 

[pemerton]

So here's an example.

Consider the computer RPG Oblivion.

I can describe what the player does in a few different but all technically accurate ways. (non-exhaustive).
1. The player is clicking his mouse and mashing his keyboard keys while staring at a screen and sitting in his desk chair.
2. The player is exploring the world of Oblivion.

Both are true. If you want to be dismissive of video games in general you may go solely with the first description, it makes the activity sound boring, pointless, etc. If you want to explain what the player is doing when he's clicking, mashing keys and staring at the screen then you might say exploring the world of Oblivion. In other words, the players goal isn't to click the mouse, mash keyboard buttons, or stare at the screen, that's just the means by which he achieves his goal of exploring the world of Oblivion.

You can say that, by reading The Lord of the Ring, I am "exploring" Middle Earth. But that is metaphor. What I am actually doing is learning what JRRT made up.

I've never played the computer game Oblivion, but it seems to me that the player is learning what the author of that game's fiction authored. Which is not a description that appears in your list!

Perhaps you think it is pointless to learn what other people have authored? I don't know. I don't. But I don't need to cloak it in metaphor to talk about it.

 

[pemerton]

The GM having ultra strong fiat power is no problem because of artistic constraints (NOT system constraints, artistic)

Failure to recognise that is, as per the thread subject, a huge blind spot for many Narrativist players

I think that attention to artistic constraints is important. But I also think some care is needed. For instance, I've never seen an account of how a GM handles extrapolation from their prep, in the context of GMing a standard CoC module, where the idea of artistic constraints would have purchase.

(I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm saying that I've never seen it.)

I did once play in a Cthulhu-esque freeform game where artistic constraints, both on players and GM, mattered a great deal - they drove the conflicts and the decision-making. But it was about as far away from a standard CoC-esque mystery module as you could get and still stick the label "Cthulhu" on the game!

 

[pemerton]

AW has been brought up a few times, what does it do to involve or confront anything bearing on the fundamentals of character or some overarching theme/question.

The core GM moves involve revealing/presenting badness, presenting opportunities with or without a cost, and putting characters in a spot. These all involve presenting situations that speak to the fundamentals of character, as they are value/goal/hope-relative.

This is reinforced by the player-side moves: reading a person, reading a charged situation, trying to procure behaviour through leverage (Seduce/Manipulate) or by threats (Going Aggro).

 

[pemerton]

But does that lack define them? If you include such matters of character or premise, does that mean the game is no longer a sandbox or mainstream or what have you?

I don't know if it does as a matter of principle. I think it might tend to, in practice. I say this because of the influence of the notion of "neutral refereeing".

In the abstract, this can cover multiple considerations: designing a setting, or a situation, without regard to player-established PC priorities; narrating a consequence without regard to such priorities; making decisions about the fiction in a blorb-esque way; etc. I think these are separate things, because eg the setting can be "neutral" (eg I often use World of Greyhawk) but situations not (I use WoG in Burning Wheel and Torchbearer); situations can be neutral but consequences not (Marvel Heroic can be a bit like this - the "adventure" is standard super-hero stuff, but the consequences bring the focus in on the characters and what matters to them); a situation might be non-neutral but the GM might extrapolate from it in a blorb-eseque way (my Rolemaster play sometimes looked like this); etc.

But these different things often get run together in discussions of sand-boxing and neutral refereeing. And the more that happens, the less room there is for bearing on characters, themes, etc in a fundamental way.

 

[FrogReaver]

You can say that, by reading The Lord of the Ring, I am "exploring" Middle Earth. But that is metaphor. What I am actually doing is learning what JRRT made up.

I've never played the computer game Oblivion, but it seems to me that the player is learning what the author of that game's fiction authored. Which is not a description that appears in your list!

Perhaps you think it is pointless to learn what other people have authored? I don't know. I don't. But I don't need to cloak it in metaphor to talk about it.

Then the simple answer is that I believe exploration can literally mean exploring in a non-physical way. There’s probably a few nuances around this usage, but that seems to be the crux of the issue. I don’t believe that usage is a metaphor.

 

[FrogReaver]

The core GM moves involve revealing/presenting badness, presenting opportunities with or without a cost, and putting characters in a spot. These all involve presenting situations that speak to the fundamentals of character, as they are value/goal/hope-relative.

I feel like there’s a missing step here or maybe a few. You tell me about GM moves. Cool. You then Assert that these moves involve presenting situations that speak to the fundamentals of character and provide the justification that they are all value/goal/hope-relative.

I’m not clear to me why that matters, at least without more detail.

 

[thefutilist]

I think that attention to artistic constraints is important. But I also think some care is needed. For instance, I've never seen an account of how a GM handles extrapolation from their prep, in the context of GMing a standard CoC module, where the idea of artistic constraints would have purchase.

(I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm saying that I've never seen it.)

I did once play in a Cthulhu-esque freeform game where artistic constraints, both on players and GM, mattered a great deal - they drove the conflicts and the decision-making. But it was about as far away from a standard CoC-esque mystery module as you could get and still stick the label "Cthulhu" on the game!

Point taken. It's possible my steel-manning of trad play actually borders on the disingenuous.

 

[zakael19]

I feel like there’s a missing step here or maybe a few. You tell me about GM moves. Cool. You then Assert that these moves involve presenting situations that speak to the fundamentals of character and provide the justification that they are all value/goal/hope-relative.

I’m not clear to me why that matters, at least without more detail.

YOu need to look at the character and what they value, what they see as important, who matters to them, what they want to protect/gain, & etc to do any of the things listed in those GM moves. If you dont know what the character wants, how can you offer them an opportunity? If you don't know what they care about / hold on to, how can you present badness that threatens it?

When I use very similar moves in Stonetop, it's testing relationships; asking how much they care about their town; flexing against the Instincts they have written down; pushing the NPCs they've defined as important or tugging on the ones they have beef with.