GM fiat - an illustration

[Bedrockgames]

I'm not familiar enough with the clock mechanism in PbtA games but from the little I've read on these forums it's reminds me of the Living World concept of some Trad games.

As I understand it the difference being that clocks are a technique/procedure (i.e. structured) and may relate to 1-2 items progressing whereas the Living World is governed via DM fiat and it incorporates 1000's of imaginary clocks so the mechanic cannot be player-facing.

From those who know/understand both the technique and the concept, is that a fair assessment?

A lot of living world GMs rely heavily on tools for managing things and some of them even look something like clocks. Factions are a big part of living world play and abstracting things like conflict between them becomes necessary sometimes. I lot of the tools in living world is about the GM choosing not to simply decide something but instead defer to a random method of some kind or some other approach. Generally living worlds are not going to do the player facing thing. I have a bunch of tools I use for example to handle things like sect conflict and grudge encounters. In theory a GM could run a living world sandbox as pure fiat*, but most wouldn't do that. And I would again say something like rulings, which is very central to sandbox at this point, is outside fiat. I understand some people would fold rulings in with fiat, but I tend to think of fiat as more about the GM deciding outcomes rather than deciding which mechanic to use to figure out the outcome (once you make a ruling and decide on a mechanic, the outcome is out of the GMs hands at that point).

 

[zakael19]

Thought experiment:

Lets say the situation in the game is this. The PCs have infiltrated into a heavily guarded mansion/dungeon/castle/facility/etc. Their goal is to steal gold/money/etc. They have managed to find a safe/treasure chest/etc. There are still active guards/monsters/etc in the building. The the players do not know whether the safe/chest is trapped, but suspect that it is possible that it might.

A) In typical traddish simmish D&D 5e,
1) how you as GM would determine what happens if the PCs try to search for a trap or open it?
2) How you as player would proceed in this situation and what factors would affect your decision?

B) Then same with Blades in the Dark.

A) 1)what have I written down? My prep informs if there’s a trap, and what the DC for finding and disabling is. Depending on the questions the players ask, they’ll either activate the Skills on their sheet or simply ask for details.
2) I’d ask if there’s signs of a trap with some questions, at some point likely triggering a perception / investigation request. Might try and see if there’s magic/alarms before trying anything further.

B) to use the example of a previous score: I’d determined that given the faction the players had -2 with was the Circle of Flame who are known for arcane/ghost stuff - it made sense for the wealthy industrialist to have a ghost ward from them. When they decided to melt into the office, they saw a locked safe with a silver circle inscribed on the floor in front of it. Whisper did a GI roll, as did the Leech - and they established the two threats here were a) a ghost materializing and causing problems and b) an alarm trigger from the safe. The Whisper covered the Ghost threat with Attune + some items to boost effect; the Leech Tinkered to break the alarm.

 

[zakael19]

Yes, they're quite similar. I think the clocks is a method of gamifying it and making it more concrete, though in the process some of the nuance might be lost. And of course in most games that use clocks, it is still GM who decides whether something ticks a clock or whether something else bad happens. Also, in living world stuff happening is often player facing in a sense that it is events that the players will be aware of. ("You hear rumours about the Dark Lord amassing an army of orcs in his Black Keep of Badness" etc.)

A clock is a round progress bar. Blades’ innovation was just encouraging their use as keeping consequences and changes very player facing. Clock ticks or unticks happen broadly on 3 things: a) as a consequence of a roll (resist-able), b) as a result of a fortune roll for faction ones during downtime or c) when the fiction demands.

All world-affecting clocks are supposed to telegraph back to the players through the fiction.

 

[robertsconley]

I just reviewed the first few pages of the thread: you seem to come in with posts 99, 103 and 119, which are all about GM impartiality.

Since we are looking at past posts.

You stated the following

And one reason for that is that "living world" describes a player experience, or a "vibe"; not a technique or set of techniques.

Critizing the use of terms like "living world" describing "vibes" rather than a set of useful techniques

Except that is inaccurate. Those of us who write about sandbox campaigns describe a set of useful techniques that are associated with the term "living world". It is about both procedure and tone.

And in writing about that technique, there have been times when actual play videos are referenced.

And you referenced those videos in the past. Recently in forum post #1445

And in the post I am currently replying to.

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.

You talk of impressions, yet when I look at #1445, it doesn't seem like the type of analysis you are usually capable of.

Maps and minis are not remotely first person. Or second person. They are god's-eye-view.

I watched a bit of this video that Google turned up:
The description of something making a noise like a steam kettle didn't seem to me to be "only a step removed from actually having something there fore the players to smell, taste, or touch". It also either made assumptions about the character's mental states (ie that, upon hearing the noise, they would think of a steam kettle) or else involved meta-gaming (that is, trading on the player's knowledge of an out-of-game thing, namely, a kettle, to try and then get them to think of the sound happening in the fiction).

Nor were you interested in supporting what little analysis you did when I wrote a substantive reply in post #1497

Overall, your conversation with @Bedrockgames comes off as a legal cross-examination rather than an attempt to understand his approach. You choose to debate the language used and demand specificity without offering concrete alternatives in your conversation. And worse, when somebody like me, who spells it out and gets specific, you choose not to engage with that reply, despite its relevance.

I respect the fact that many hobbyists enjoy campaigns focused more on collaborative worldbuilding and narratives. In trying these campaigns both as a player and a referee, I discovered that the tools and systems created to support these types of campaigns have elements that proved useful to how I approach things.

The hobby benefits from the diversity of focus and techniques. But can only do so if folks are willing to accept that there are other viable approaches.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Because, in a general sense, that's Narrativist agenda, game play about the characters. There's no 'more detail' any more than there is any more detail about why classic dungeon crawls are about traversing a dungeon and collecting treasure.

However I can offer this. I favor this sort of agenda because it engages players very directly. It gives them a 'piece of the action' right from the start. I'm not running 'my game' 'for' someone, we are on a pretty equal footing, in it together. Just my nature, I find artifice and unequal status arrangements unpalatable.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm not familiar enough with the clock mechanism in PbtA games but from the little I've read on these forums it's reminds me of the Living World concept of some Trad games.

As I understand it the difference being that clocks are a technique/procedure (i.e. structured) and may relate to 1-2 items progressing whereas the Living World is governed via DM fiat and it incorporates 1000's of imaginary clocks so the mechanic cannot be player-facing.

From those who know/understand both the technique and the concept, is that a fair assessment?

Well, I am extremely skeptical of any claim that a GM is tracking 1000's of things in any style of play. That being said, clocks in BitD are tools to measure progress or to apply pressure. A crew and its members could, IME be running up to a couple dozen clocks. There is also a relationship track, basically a clock, for each other group in Doskvol, though I would say games will normally only bring maybe a dozen at most into active relevance.

By contrast, IME, living world type approaches generally focus on 3 to 5 elements, though there might be a bunch of 'bit player' NPCs and such that might be hauled into view where needed. This is fairly consistent with AW/DW/Stonetop where there are rarely more than 3 active threats/fronts at a time, though over a campaign some of the less salient/engaging ones may fade, or simply play out offstage.

DW talks about this pretty expensively. The vision is of a kind of semi-scripted living world. Fronts, major ones at least, grind on even if the players ignore them. The GM will point out these events and may make 'use your prep' to bring them on stage. But remember, all this is authored in view of, and relating to the PCs to start with. So all of it has a different character from some pre-planned meta plot.

 

[robertsconley]

Well, I am extremely skeptical of any claim that a GM is tracking 1000's of things in any style of play.

The short answer is that when using World in Motion, i.e., the living world, it gets tracked, but not everything gets updated at the same time.

Stuff gets updated when it is relevant to the campaign. For me, relevant is anything within the character's immediate social circle or external elements that could impact the characters and their social circle, like a king proclaiming a holiday or war. Otherwise it is still in its file with whatever information it had when it was last used.

When it is relevant, it gets updated to the present day using whatever procedure the referee figures best for their campaign. For me it is a combination of reasonable extrapolation, and the use of dice as an oracle. Other referee use dice only, other fiat only. Everybody has their own way of managing it.

By contrast, IME, living world type approaches generally focus on 3 to 5 elements, though there might be a bunch of 'bit player' NPCs and such that might be hauled into view where needed. This is fairly consistent with AW/DW/Stonetop where there are rarely more than 3 active threats/fronts at a time, though over a campaign some of the less salient/engaging ones may fade, or simply play out offstage.

People vary in their capacity to handle simultaneous elements. What I found boils down to organization. It doesn't matter so much how much you can track at once. What matters is how quickly you can find something when you need to track it. I learned long ago how to use the Palace of Memory technique to find where my notes are. The entry point is either a timeline I memorized or a geographical index. From there, I can zero in on where to pull the note to read up on or, in some cases, just outright remember.

It only special in that it is a skill that needs to be practiced to be good at and keep one's notes well organized.

Also, to be clear, while this works for me as the referee, the players, on the other hand, pretty much only keep track of a half dozen things at most. And generally will focus on one or two things.


If your interested I can illustrate my points with detailed example that had just occurred over the past two months.

 

[hawkeyefan]

B) Then same with Blades in the Dark.

I would ask the player how they are trying to assess that. What action are they taking? The player would tell me. They might say "I Survey to see if I notice signs of a trap" or they might say "I Tinker with the chest to see if I notice anything out of the ordinary" or they might say "I Attune to the ghost field to see what can be revealed about the chest". The move is up to the player, which is a key factor. I would then ask them to state their intention clearly... something like "So you're going to try and Tinker to find and remove any possible traps?" and wait for them to confirm or clarify.

I would then set Position and Effect. Without compelling reason to go otherwise, I think Risky Position and Standard Effect. The stakes seem pretty clear... there's possibly a trap, and you may trigger it. What that means would depend on what's already been established or not... so if there is a clock about avoiding detection, perhaps the trap is like an Alarm spell or similar. Otherwise, we could go with Harm of some kind if the trap is sprung. Or maybe two consequences would make sense... noise of the trap going off and possibly adding to a relevant clock and the harm from the trap itself.

I'd then ask the player if they want to use any resources to assist in their roll. Do they want to Push (2 stress spend) for an extra die? Does anyone want to assist them (1 stress spend, but they are also at risk in some way)? Do they have any relevant gear or playbook abilities to deploy?

Once all that's been determined, we go with the roll. Then, based on the results of the roll, I would narrate the consequences. Based on this limited sketch of a situation, and assuming a Tinker roll, I'd likely do something like the below:

• 1-3- the trap goes off noisily- the character takes level 2 harm from the trap and we tick two ticks on the "Alarm Raised" clock.
• 4-5- the character neutralizes the trap, but doing so springs it, and it still makes noise- no harm, but two ticks on the "Alarm Raised" clock
• 6- the trap is neutralized quietly- no harm, no ticks on the clock

There are other ways to handle it, certainly. And it would matter what clocks are in play and so on. The type of Action the player decides is also a very important factor. What's most relevant here is that the resolution isn't determined by the GM deciding all the relevant factors ahead of time.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

@hawkeyefan But how did you decide there was a trap in the first place?

@zakael19 Was there a risk in the roll for examining the safe in your Blades game?

 

[hawkeyefan]

@hawkeyefan But how did you decide there was a trap in the first place?

@zakael19 Was there a risk int roll for examining the safe in your Blades game?

Based on the general setup, it seemed likely, and the player seems to expect it. If I felt there wouldn’t be a trap and there seemed to be no major weight to this moment, then I’d just say “there’s no trap on the chest” and let them proceed. I don’t want to spend a lit of time on inconsequential moments of play like that.

I’m kind of assuming a more specific goal than just “break in and grab what you can”… I’m assuming there’s something specific being sought, and a reason for the target to want to prevent it from being taken.

Also, in my experience, there’s nothing more boring in play than spending a bunch of time on something… like what might be spent on a search for a trap in D&D… and to do well and only find out “there’s nothing there”.

The way I approach Blades (and which I think is in line with what the game expects and what many others will do) is to treat an obstacle as an obstacle or else it’s not. Like, play builds up to this point… let’s have it have some meaning.

One of the things that invariably comes up in these comparisons is that someone advocating for a more traditional approach to play will point out that their players are still free to go their own way… that they love when players come up with something they didn’t expect and they have to think of new things to deal with that. It’s happened in this thread multiple times.

And I think it’s true. And I think all that folks are suggesting with advocating for narrativism or a story-now approach, is that play can be like that all the time. If the most exciting bits or the most interesting times are when the players come up with something you didn’t think of beforehand… then maybe just stop thinking of things before hand!