GM fiat - an illustration

[thefutilist]

@zakael19 answered this upthread. Opportunities, threats/badness, what counts as a "spot" - these are all relative to a character's values, goals, hopes, etc.

Thanks!
So, looking at the session 1 thing, note how there's nothing about any prep, none exists at this point. Note how AW is completely different from Gamma World. GW 1e (the original and only one I've played or read) starts off with an elaborate (rather cool) description of the Apocalypse. The game is ABOUT The Apocalypse, everything builds on that. In AW there is no apocalypse! The game is about the PCs, exclusively. Sure, the world 'ended' notionally and that's how we got from our world to Apocalypse World, but the AW apocalypse is more a mind set, a device at best. You may, or may not, ever learn anything about it, it really isn't important. What is important are the PCs, you ask questions about them, give them screen time, make them interact, push them, get stuff going, BRING IT!

And look at that list of moves. Is there A SINGLE THING that the MC can do which is not about the PCs? NO! The most disconnected things from the PCs that the MC does is put things on the threat map, which is just future badness, and create custom moves, which are for the players to trigger. And then we should look at the other parts, why to play:

Until very recently I assumed that this sort of play was just dysfunctional. I've had to revise that take recently and my new take is that it's overwhelmingly dysfunctional (for most people who do it) but I've become convinced it can be done functionally.

I don't think Apocalypse World was built for that kind of play but the GM can make it functional. It's like jury rigging a nuclear engine with bubble gum and shoelaces but it can be done.

It relies (mostly but not exclusively) on being very player character centric when it comes to group moral judgement about the fiction. The usual (Orthodox) way of a group parsing the fiction is at the situational (not character) level.


So how does AW work for situational play?

Well AW works by having minimal backstory + situation but quickly building it up. In effect it has a causality that goes two ways.

One: The minimally defined NPC makes a move but the MC has a lot of space to make that move (they're still not trying to hit character issues though. they're just trying to make the characters lives not boring , as judged solely by the MC.

Two: An NPC makes a move but they've essentially become a 'proper' character, at which point the MC isn't thinking about the players one bit, not even about making their life interesting.

Contrast to something like Sorcerer where all the initial NPC's are in category two.


The situation in AW is what is being made of the world. How do various groups trade off safety and hope, how do they work together or not. Of course the PC's are an instrumental part of that but it's both. The world + the PC's. Not just the PC's.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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?

I think there may be some similarity, potentially… but it really depends on many things. Clocks are just a tool to use for any countdown type situation. In Apocalypse World, they’re generally used to track how injured someone may be. Blades in the Dark uses them far more broadly… for a variety of circumstances. There are also a variety of types of clocks.

As it relates to a “living world” approach, they’re meant to be used to help a GM track progress of different possible developments. Each Faction in Blades has at least one clock for a primary goal of theirs. The game also offloads the management of these clocks to dice rolls… each faction has a tier, which indicates the number of dice to roll to see how much a clock may progress.

So, for instance… the Billhooks (a violent gang known for their brutality) has an 8 segment Clock to “Terrorize magistrates into pardoning imprisoned members”. They’re a Tier 2 gang… so each Downtime phase, the GM should toll two dice and then tick a section of the clock according to the results (1-3: 1 tick; 4-5: 2 ticks; 6: 3 ticks). So the GM makes a Fortune roll using their Tier of 2… rolling 2 dice, he gets a 2 and a 6. He takea the best roll and ticks the clock 3 ticks. If this is the first roll, the clock is now 3/8 full. When it reaches 8, the goal is achieved. The characters are likely to hear about this kind of development during play.

So while Clocks can help portray a “living world”, especially when combined with other game elements like Faction Tier and the like, I don’t know if many GMs who advocate for “living world” games would use them. The methods that GMs use to kind of handle “off-screen” developments like these vary quite a bit… but in many cases, it is likely GM fiat, going with what “makes sense” or is “most likely”.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Until very recently I assumed that this sort of play was just dysfunctional. I've had to revise that take recently and my new take is that it's overwhelmingly dysfunctional (for most people who do it) but I've become convinced it can be done functionally.

I don't think Apocalypse World was built for that kind of play but the GM can make it functional. It's like jury rigging a nuclear engine with bubble gum and shoelaces but it can be done.

Hmmmm. My experience, more with DW than AW, but they can play very similarly, is that this is easy peasy mint squeezy. You literally do exactly what the book tells you to do, verbatim, and it 'just works'. I mean, ANY game can go wrong with 'that guy' in the mix, maybe you'll have to overcome some preconceptions, but AW is very reliable.

And I think situation becomes a larger part, it grows organically over time as you play. At first things are ill-defined and there's a kind of mapping out of the territory, but then we kind of learn how the land lies, and the players form a notion of the dynamics at hand. Now they'll start to really try to push this way or that way. Things will either align, or they will spin and crash. In AW though there's always more dynamics, things never come to rest. In DW there's much more of a concept of a 'campaign arc' that arrives at some conclusions.

It relies (mostly but not exclusively) on being very player character centric when it comes to group moral judgement about the fiction. The usual (Orthodox) way of a group parsing the fiction is at the situational (not character) level.

I'm not sure about this. Groups, out of character, maybe also in character, may come to some conclusions about moral (or maybe other) aspects of the fiction. Anyway, maybe I understand what you are saying, maybe I don't...

So how does AW work for situational play?

Well AW works by having minimal backstory + situation but quickly building it up. In effect it has a causality that goes two ways.

One: The minimally defined NPC makes a move but the MC has a lot of space to make that move (they're still not trying to hit character issues though. they're just trying to make the characters lives not boring , as judged solely by the MC.

Two: An NPC makes a move but they've essentially become a 'proper' character, at which point the MC isn't thinking about the players one bit, not even about making their life interesting.

Contrast to something like Sorcerer where all the initial NPC's are in category two.

I'm not sure AW does much at all in your two. I think that any fiction requires some degree of a notion that stuff is going on, and some character development can be pretty useful. Still, IMHO the focus stays pretty squarely on the PCs and what is going on with them. If the GM is figuring out what an NPC is doing, whatever that is will be in relation to PC stuff pretty directly.

The situation in AW is what is being made of the world. How do various groups trade off safety and hope, how do they work together or not. Of course the PC's are an instrumental part of that but it's both. The world + the PC's. Not just the PC's.

I don't know, maybe you are seeing an aspect in AW that I'm not seeing. While it certainly need not be all doom and gloom, if the PCs win through to hope, let alone safety, it is going to be a monumental test. I think AW is a game where situation, as I think you mean it, is actually pretty secondary. The characters are in a hard place, and it is going to get harder, that's pretty much how it is set up to work.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think there may be some similarity, potentially… but it really depends on many things. Clocks are just a tool to use for any countdown type situation. In Apocalypse World, they’re generally used to track how injured someone may be. Blades in the Dark uses them far more broadly… for a variety of circumstances. There are also a variety of types of clocks.

As it relates to a “living world” approach, they’re meant to be used to help a GM track progress of different possible developments. Each Faction in Blades has at least one clock for a primary goal of theirs. The game also offloads the management of these clocks to dice rolls… each faction has a tier, which indicates the number of dice to roll to see how much a clock may progress.

So, for instance… the Billhooks (a violent gang known for their brutality) has an 8 segment Clock to “Terrorize magistrates into pardoning imprisoned members”. They’re a Tier 2 gang… so each Downtime phase, the GM should toll two dice and then tick a section of the clock according to the results (1-3: 1 tick; 4-5: 2 ticks; 6: 3 ticks). So the GM makes a Fortune roll using their Tier of 2… rolling 2 dice, he gets a 2 and a 6. He takea the best roll and ticks the clock 3 ticks. If this is the first roll, the clock is now 3/8 full. When it reaches 8, the goal is achieved. The characters are likely to hear about this kind of development during play.

So while Clocks can help portray a “living world”, especially when combined with other game elements like Faction Tier and the like, I don’t know if many GMs who advocate for “living world” games would use them. The methods that GMs use to kind of handle “off-screen” developments like these vary quite a bit… but in many cases, it is likely GM fiat, going with what “makes sense” or is “most likely”.

Honestly, my feeling was that you are only going to run these clocks for the groups you actually bring on screen, and maybe the GM will also track a couple others she's especially interested in and likely to mention/might come into play soon. There's what, 40 groups? If you rolled for all of them it would get crazy fast. Maybe at first I'd focus on the ones that are in the ward where the PCs turf is. When/If they align themselves with another group, then run the clocks for that group's enemies, etc.

I'm pretty sure in our campaign something like half the groups never even got a mention at all. We did close to 40 sessions and played all the way through tier 5. So, by the mid-game we were all over Doskvol tangling with a lot of folks. Honestly, I think we were USUALLY at war with at least 2 other groups at a time!

 

[hawkeyefan]

Honestly, my feeling was that you are only going to run these clocks for the groups you actually bring on screen, and maybe the GM will also track a couple others she's especially interested in and likely to mention/might come into play soon. There's what, 40 groups? If you rolled for all of them it would get crazy fast. Maybe at first I'd focus on the ones that are in the ward where the PCs turf is. When/If they align themselves with another group, then run the clocks for that group's enemies, etc.

I'm pretty sure in our campaign something like half the groups never even got a mention at all. We did close to 40 sessions and played all the way through tier 5. So, by the mid-game we were all over Doskvol tangling with a lot of folks. Honestly, I think we were USUALLY at war with at least 2 other groups at a time!

Oh yes, I didn’t mean that the GM should be rolling for all of them… just whichever ones are relevant to play. If they intersect with interests of the crew or the districts they tend to frequent and so on.

I think the idea that a GM should (or even can) do this for dozens of factions or other setting developments is misguided at best.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Clocks are just a tool to use for any countdown type situation. ...(snip)...

So, for instance… the Billhooks (a violent gang known for their brutality) has an 8 segment Clock to “Terrorize magistrates into pardoning imprisoned members”. They’re a Tier 2 gang… so each Downtime phase, the GM should toll two dice and then tick a section of the clock according to the results (1-3: 1 tick; 4-5: 2 ticks; 6: 3 ticks). So the GM makes a Fortune roll using their Tier of 2… rolling 2 dice, he gets a 2 and a 6. He takea the best roll and ticks the clock 3 ticks. If this is the first roll, the clock is now 3/8 full. When it reaches 8, the goal is achieved. The characters are likely to hear about this kind of development during play.

Is the clock player-facing.
For instance, do the players know type of situation the countdown will reflect?
i.e. do they know what goal is achieved by the Billhooks at 8?

In my current game, which is culminating towards the big finish, there is an actual time frame (clock) that was communicated to the PCs which would reach its zenith within 3 months / roughly 100 days.
I have told the players the EVENT happens at 90+2d10 days.
That is as much as I have told them (for now).

I'm considering telling them more though from a gamist perspective.
If the PCs are early to the event the BBEG encounter is treated as Deadly
If the PCs are late to the event, the BBEG encounter difficulty is increased by x by the number of days they are late.
So, I will only roll the 2d10 when they arrive for the encounter.

There are incentives for coming late (risking it) though to
Gain allies
Gain items
Weaken opposing forces
Adjusting the 2d10
Earn XP for achieving or progressing character goals

I have enough twists (secret backstories) in the bag that I could communicate all the above. So I'm good!
In any event the 2d10 result will be a surprise to everyone at the table.

So while Clocks can help portray a “living world”, especially when combined with other game elements like Faction Tier and the like, I don’t know if many GMs who advocate for “living world” games would use them. The methods that GMs use to kind of handle “off-screen” developments like these vary quite a bit… but in many cases, it is likely GM fiat, going with what “makes sense” or is “most likely”.

I think you are right, but I would not discount the appeal of these techniques found in non-D&D games that push the gamist agenda. Strangely enough, GMs for D&D are humans too and we can certainly enjoy and encourage a little entropy in our novellas.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

@hawkeyefan @zakael19

So what I found interesting that you both just went with the trap existing, and it's existence being a GM decision.

So you wouldn't run "quantum traps" where the existence of trap is in superposition, and it will collapse into existence as a consequence of some roll?

How would the knowledge of the trap affect the roll for opening the safe? There was mention it affecting the position (so desperate if the PC is not aware of the trap, presumably risky if they are?) This makes sense to me, but only if information gathering itself is risk free. Otherwise the overall risk is probably greater with two rolls.

 

[robertsconley]

The methods that GMs use to kind of handle “off-screen” developments like these vary quite a bit… but in many cases, it is likely GM fiat, going with what “makes sense” or is “most likely”.

I think the use of "GM fiat" to describe how “Living World” or “World in Motion” GMs operate can be misleading. In my experience, and that of others I know who run this style, it’s not about whims or unstructured choice.

When I update the world, I base it on a combination of three things: plausible extrapolation from prior events, the motivations and capabilities of NPCs and factions, and the dice (random tables or oracles) for uncertainty. The goal isn’t to author what’s most dramatic, but to simulate how events might logically unfold given what’s been established. It’s more like running a historical simulation than authoring a story.

The difference from clocks is that instead of a fixed clock with predefined segments, I’m working from a timeline, how the setting is described and its internal logic. The resolution is still procedural; it just isn’t formalized into a visual tool.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think the use of "GM fiat" to describe how “Living World” or “World in Motion” GMs operate can be misleading. In my experience, and that of others I know who run this style, it’s not about whims or unstructured choice.

When I update the world, I base it on a combination of three things: plausible extrapolation from prior events, the motivations and capabilities of NPCs and factions, and the dice (random tables or oracles) for uncertainty. The goal isn’t to author what’s most dramatic, but to simulate how events might logically unfold given what’s been established. It’s more like running a historical simulation than authoring a story.

Right. If that is "GM fiat" then narrativist games are also full of GM fiat. I am not particularly concerned about specific definition of the term, but I wish people were at least consistent with it, instead of flipping it based on whether we are talking about their preferred style or not.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think the use of "GM fiat" to describe how “Living World” or “World in Motion” GMs operate can be misleading. In my experience, and that of others I know who run this style, it’s not about whims or unstructured choice.

I agree something about the term GM fiat here feels like it glosses over things (for me personally when I hear the phrase GM fiat, what comes to mind is a rigid GM bringing their hand down on the table and issuing a decree by force of will more than any other thing). But this off screen concern gets a lot of heavy discussion among GMs running the style and tons of tools outside ‘GM decides’ have been developed to help give this the sense of life it needs

When I update the world, I base it on a combination of three things: plausible extrapolation from prior events, the motivations and capabilities of NPCs and factions, and the dice (random tables or oracles) for uncertainty. The goal isn’t to author what’s most dramatic, but to simulate how events might logically unfold given what’s been established. It’s more like running a historical simulation than authoring a story.

This is I think a very common thread. I am more open to drama than a lot of sandbox GMs but I am also wary of letting my game succum to a 90s storyteller railroad (i don’t mean vampire specifically but the general storytelling style a lot of modules had in the 90s). So for me this means leaning heavily of tools (for instance things like shake up tables) and focusing on NPC goals. NPCs might have goals that feel pulled out of a dramatic Shaw Brothers movie but I don’t think ‘this would be a dramatic thing to have happen’ I think in terms of ‘this is what Hell Burning Sword is going to try to achieve” (and that goal is going to be subject to relevant rolls—because I personally don’t want to know how any of this is going to turn out, I want to be surprised as well)