GM fiat - an illustration

[robertsconley]

I know I'm late to this so maybe this has already been answered, but... how would the intruders (a) know an alarm spell had been set and (b) know the spell's duration?

Presumably, the intruders would have to watch the caster casting the spell and make an Arcana check, and be stealthier than the entire party's passive or active Perception (or the equivalent in a different system) and continue to beat their Perceptions for the entire eight hours. That's a lot to just accept.

I want to highlight a portion of the OP that may clarify @pemerton's point of view.

It's possible, in TB2e, for a wily intruder to avoid the alarm, but that would be a narration adopted after the camp event roll is made and an unhappy event results despite the bonus. And it is possible for the watch to be too distracted or drowsy or whatever to effectively respond, despite the alarm; but again, that would be a narration adopted after their test to avert disaster fails, notwithstanding the +1D bonus.

What is happening is the party has camped, a series of rolls are made, then a narrative is crafted to fit the results generated by the rolls. From my experience with these types of mechanics, elements of the narrative would have been created as the rolls were being made. But the final "story" of the event with elements of who, what, and why is only created afterwards.

I hope that help with understanding what the differences are.

 

[robertsconley]

I certainly understand where you're coming from, but I do think there's less certainty and less ultimate objectivity in the process you describe. Honestly I don't say that as a criticism, I think it is entirely necessary for these games to work!

And I think, in that context you sell @pemerton

I understand what you are getting at. To clarify, while the procedure and tools I outlined are methodical, the process is not meant to produce an objective result. It meant to create something consistent and reflect the referee's creative vision, an inherently subjective process.

For me, the process's value is that it keeps decisions grounded in the setting's internal logic. It’s not about prediction or objectivity, just consistency. That’s what gives players the sense that the world reacts to their actions in a believable way.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think there's a certain philosophical/historiographical position that has always felt right to me which doesn't justify, but may describe, my aversion to this kind of process. Remember the old adage "for want of a nail the shoe was lost; for want of a shoe the horse was lost; for want of a horse the rider was lost; for want of a rider the battle was lost." Reality, the actual realistic cause and effect chains that events arise out of, are a sea of boiling chaos. A dense weave of tiny factors interacting in a vast web of effect which ultimately has no boundaries. Buddhists call this 'Dependent Origination'.

On historiography, that is a whole other kettle of fish, and its own debate probably not something we could confine to a thread like this. I probably do come from a slightly different perspective than you, but I am not going to claim I have real insight into what historiographical lens is better (I think with history people ought to decide for themselves how they see the world in that respect). So just starting this to say I respect your view of things here and wouldn't try to change that view

One thing I do want to mention though is I do feel me and Rob are not coming at it from the position our critics sometimes paint us as. What I mean is, over the course of this thread, I have said a number of times that this isn't about simulating reality. It is about believability not realism. While there are people striving more for a concrete simulated world (those folks often use much more crunchy systems because they want stuff that feels more like a physics engine). What I want are characters who behave believably, events that flow logically from on another, and a certain liveliness to the world. And I am very much about trying to bring Shaw Brothers sets to life. So I am thinking in terms of much starker and broader chains of causality. If I do want to represent something like 'but for a nail' that is where rolls come in.

I do get where you are coming from. But I feel like when we say we want a living world or sandbox adventure, and people respond by saying "but you can't even accurately model reality anyways, so you should just do what I do" feels very unsatisfying, because that isn't what we are trying to achieve and we both like what we are doing. People aren’t shooting for pure realism or objectify. That is not the goal.

I have had the most successful campaigns running my sessions this way, easily, over other methods I have tried (not going to say other people should use my aprpoch but when people say it breaks down or doesn’t work (or isn’t worth the effort, perhaps for them that is true). But I can consistently have long term campaigns using this style. So for me the proof is in the pudding (if a give approach allows me to reach over 80 sessions, and the players are eager to come back week to week, that is sufficient evidence for me)

 

[Faolyn]

I want to highlight a portion of the OP that may clarify @pemerton's point of view.



What is happening is the party has camped, a series of rolls are made, then a narrative is crafted to fit the results generated by the rolls. From my experience with these types of mechanics, elements of the narrative would have been created as the rolls were being made. But the final "story" of the event with elements of who, what, and why is only created afterwards.

I hope that help with understanding what the differences are.

Well, not quite because I already know the difference between the two spells (well, my knowledge of the TB spell is based on how it's described here, as I don't actually own that game). But if the idea is "the intruders can wait 8 hours and 5 minute" as in D&D or games that have alarm-type spells that work similarly, there's a lot of other things to take into consideration. Including the intruders having no idea that there's an alarm there at all, or deciding to attack from range.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I certainly understand where you're coming from, but I do think there's less certainty and less ultimate objectivity in the process you describe. Honestly I don't say that as a criticism, I think it is entirely necessary for these games to work!

Yes, it is somewhat subjective, but there still is a structure and principles that guide the decision making. Just like in narrative games for the GM deciding obstacles and consequences etc. I think it is wild to me and shows bias and inability to look things objectively if people cannot recognise and accept this.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I know I'm late to this so maybe this has already been answered, but... how would the intruders (a) know an alarm spell had been set and (b) know the spell's duration?

Presumably, the intruders would have to watch the caster casting the spell and make an Arcana check, and be stealthier than the entire party's passive or active Perception (or the equivalent in a different system) and continue to beat their Perceptions for the entire eight hours. That's a lot to just accept.

Not to mention that if this somehow happened, the alarm spell still would have done its job of giving the party an uninterrupted long rest.

 

[robertsconley]

Let's take another simpler case, language. Is there any actual advantage for a PC to learn a language in a traditional approach to play? LONG ago this was debated, undoubtedly if you ask Lew Pulsipher about it he'll recall those days, the late '70s.

The consensus, at least in my neck of the woods, was no. Any RP situation, puzzle, etc. that you run into the GM can trivially rationalize some orc or monster or whatever being able to speak with you. While the MM may not call it out, any individual monster is reasonably likely, at least feasibly could, have learned common, elvish, etc. The only reason for the GM to rule against that is in order to make things hard for you. But this is rarely, if ever, something that was called out before play. Sure, GMs devise dungeons, in a broad sense, as challenges, and this could be such, but it is generally an afterthought, a grey area where nobody knows the situation and it could plausibly go either way.

I would point out that language would have a very different role in, say TB2e. Speaking the other guys language is simply a bonus to negotiate successfully.

I responded to your earlier post before you added the language example, so I wanted to follow up.

The use of language in a campaign is ultimately a creative choice, part of the setting’s internal logic. In one setting, the referee might treat languages as essential and strictly enforced. In another, they may be more flexible or hand-waved. Either way, the process I outlined for World in Motion works in both cases. What matters is consistency with how the setting logic is defined.

When language is part of that setting logic, with World in Motion it is treated it like any other character element meant to be roleplayed. How heavily it factors into play will depend on the context and style of the campaign. As you pointed out, there are a variety of approaches, all with different strengths and weaknesses. And yes, it’s something that’s been debated in depth for decades.

 

[soviet]

I can't follow this thread without being reminded of my favourite band:

 

[robertsconley]

Well, not quite because I already know the difference between the two spells (well, my knowledge of the TB spell is based on how it's described here, as I don't actually own that game). But if the idea is "the intruders can wait 8 hours and 5 minute" as in D&D or games that have alarm-type spells that work similarly, there's a lot of other things to take into consideration. Including the intruders having no idea that there's an alarm there at all, or deciding to attack from range.

Yes, what you said is right for how many D&D 5e campaigns are run, it's also how my Majestic Fantasy campaigns work. In contrast, Torchbearer doesn’t concern itself with those details beforehand. It starts with a basic situation like “the party is camping,” then the group makes a series of rolls. Only after the rolls are complete is a narrative crafted to fit what just happened. Each approach is the reverse of the other in how events are adjudicated and described.

 

[robertsconley]

And I think, in that context you sell @pemerton's argument/position a little short.

The difference between @pemerton’s view of GM fiat and mine stems from fundamentally different philosophies on how tabletop RPG campaigns should be handled. His approach prioritizes procedural narrative control through system mechanics. Mine is grounded in a consistent world model where outcomes follow from the logic of the setting. These are two incompatible models of play, and the disagreement between us flows directly from that divide.

For example, in Torchbearer, it is decided that the party will camp, whether a monster shows up and how the party responds is resolved by a series of rolls, and only afterward is the narrative constructed to explain what happened. In my Majestic Fantasy campaign, whether a monster shows up depends on what factions or creatures exist in the area, what they’re doing, and whether the party’s actions intersect with that, then I roll if the situation calls for uncertainty. It’s a reversal in how fiction and mechanics interact.