GM fiat - an illustration

[thefutilist]

Your post took me back to these two Vincent Baker blogs:

anyway: Reliable vs Unreliable Currency

anyway: A Moment of Judgment

In the second one, Baker says the following:

give the moment of judgment to a player who's strongly invested in getting it right, not in one character or another coming out on top.​

​

Player 1 wants the game to have a reliable-but-interesting internal consistency, but STRONGLY wants Bobnar to have the high-ground advantage.​

​

Player 2 wants the game to have a reliable-but-interesting internal consistency, but STRONGLY wants Bobnar to NOT have the high-ground advantage.​

​

Player 3 STRONGLY wants the game to have a reliable-but-interesting internal consistency, and doesn't care a bit whether Bobnar has the high-ground advantage.​

​

Which player should get to judge Bobnar's position? (Hint: Player 3 should.) . . .​

​

for some groups, the GM solution works great. I strongly hold that it's because those groups carefully arrange their responsibilities and self-interests, and coordinate mechanical benefits with non-mechanical (but nevertheless entirely real) costs and risks - techniques, I'm talking about, that are available to game designers - not because those groups are magic.​

In the actual play where @hawkeyefan's use of Rustic Hospitality was hosed by the GM, the GM was not like Player 3. Rather, the GM had a scene he wanted to frame - and so was an instance of Player 2, and then used his power as GM to hose the power.

From a game design perspective, this can be linked to certain features of D&D 5e: it tends to rely heavily on the GM introducing prepped situations/encounters in order for game to progress interestingly - or, to put it another way, it doesn't foreground alternative reliable means of achieving interesting situations and interesting play. (Not to say that 5e D&D must be like this. I'm identifying a tendency, not a cast-iron necessity.)

The previous paragraph describes the third of @hawkeyefan's possibilities in post 2701:
The second of those possibilities is also a departure from the Player 3 position, and is another tendency in some mainstream D&D play: the GM has an interest in maintaining control in general - an interest that may be to a degree self-proclaimed, but that is also, to some extent, encouraged by the game rulebooks - and hence declines to allow the player to exercise control by deploying their ability.

Furthermore, to me, it certainly seems pointless to include unreliable currency in the game if a GM has already prejudged - as @FrogReaver appears to have - that the conditions that enliven it are typically never available. I mean, it would be pretty odd to interpret a typical FRPG "higher ground" rule to require being hundreds of feet above the battle field - as opposed to, say on a table, or a tree stump, or fighting downwards on a slope, as per Baker's example which clearly contemplate melee combat.

So likewise, deciding in advance that a D&D PC being pursued ipso facto means they are a danger to the common folk, and hence that hiding them is ipso facto a risk to life, seems to make inclusion of the ability equally pointless.

It seems to me that, if Rustic Hospitality is an agreed component of a PC's build, the central moment of judgement is whether or not there are any common folk about (eg does the lizardfolk village, or the underground Drow city, count?). Once that has been established, the default surely is that the ability does what it says on the tin, unless and until the player declares an action that generates the risks and dangers the ability talks about.

Maybe trying to hide from Asmodeus, or a powerful dragon, also pushes things too far in terms of risk or danger. But given the way the ability is described, and the obvious trope that it draws on ("Folk Hero"), the evil vizier or sheriff's soldiers and spies clearly can't be ruled out from the start.

The moment of judgement gets silly when it talks about who should have the authority. In most cases whoever has situational authority should have judgement authority.

On the move itself, yeah lots of salient points but which is more salient is a local group decision.

I obviously agree with all the agenda stuff.


Why the whole thing grinds my gears is that everyone who has played trad (me for instance) needs to relearn agenda stuff and, reorient themselves to the medium. Fiat is a huge roadblock because it's so commonly, wrongly, misidentified as the problem.

This is most obvious in scene framing. All you have can be taken from you by the GM like that and to GM well (or more broadly to use situational authority well), you need to get over the hump that you owe the players anything.

To cook up an example using the aforementioned move:


scene one:

Your wounded bandit arrives at a village house with the Inquisitor in pursuit. They stow you away, bandage your wounds and all that stuff.


scene two:

The Inquisitor has entered the house and is interrogating the owner whilst you watch on from under the floorboards, you're not sure if the owner will give you up. If he doesn't and you're found anyway, that's it for him and his family. What do you do?


I used to think that scene two was somehow illegitimate because the player has earned or is entitled to protection. It really was an issue for me for a bit. It could be that this really is 'me stuff' though and I'm reading in problems that aren't there.

 

[pemerton]

his is most obvious in scene framing. All you have can be taken from you by the GM like that and to GM well (or more broadly to use situational authority well), you need to get over the hump that you owe the players anything.

Won't this depend on other considerations, like the rules and principles of the system being played?

To cook up an example using the aforementioned move:


scene one:

Your wounded bandit arrives at a village house with the Inquisitor in pursuit. They stow you away, bandage your wounds and all that stuff.


scene two:

The Inquisitor has entered the house and is interrogating the owner whilst you watch on from under the floorboards, you're not sure if the owner will give you up. If he doesn't and you're found anyway, that's it for him and his family. What do you do?


I used to think that scene two was somehow illegitimate because the player has earned or is entitled to protection.

To elaborate on what I just said, here are some considerations that seem relevant here, assuming 5e D&D:

(1) Did the player succeed on a DEX (Stealth) check to "slip away without being noticed", and/or on a CHA check to "blend into a crowd"? (The quoted phrases are taken from the rules on using ability scores: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/basic-rules-2014/using-ability-scores)

If so, then how does the GM's framed scene relate to that successful check? What "win" was the player entitled to, as a result of that check?

(2) Does the GM narrate the inquisitor scene before or after the PC has had a chance to rest, so a, to recover hit points and/or spells and other abilities? In D&D, the effectiveness of a PC on 1 hp and with all spells used, compared to a PC on full hp with all spells recovered, is very different. As @Manbearcat pointed out upthread, one evident purpose of the Rustic Hospitality ability is to give the player some degree of control over their PC's rest cycle.


If your view that the player is not owed anything extends to the claim that success or failure on checks is not relevant to what scenes the GM is permitted to frame, or that GM control over pacing is not constrained in any fashion by player choices or deployment of PC abilities, then I think we find ourselves in disagreement.

 

[thefutilist]

Won't this depend on other considerations, like the rules and principles of the system being played?

To elaborate on what I just said, here are some considerations that seem relevant here, assuming 5e D&D:

(1) Did the player succeed on a DEX (Stealth) check to "slip away without being noticed", and/or on a CHA check to "blend into a crowd"? (The quoted phrases are taken from the rules on using ability scores: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/basic-rules-2014/using-ability-scores)

If so, then how does the GM's framed scene relate to that successful check? What "win" was the player entitled to, as a result of that check?

(2) Does the GM narrate the inquisitor scene before or after the PC has had a chance to rest, so a, to recover hit points and/or spells and other abilities? In D&D, the effectiveness of a PC on 1 hp and with all spells used, compared to a PC on full hp with all spells recovered, is very different. As @Manbearcat pointed out upthread, one evident purpose of the Rustic Hospitality ability is to give the player some degree of control over their PC's rest cycle.


If your view that the player is not owed anything extends to the claim that success or failure on checks is not relevant to what scenes the GM is permitted to frame, or that GM control over pacing is not constrained in any fashion by player choices or deployment of PC abilities, then I think we find ourselves in disagreement.

It's an interesting question to think about but in a load of games how effective you are boils down to, the GM decides.

In my hypothetical I was thinking that the Inquisitor was maybe an hour behind. The player gets sanctuary without any conflict because of the ability. Do they have time to rest? I'd probably use the rest rules, is an hour or two long enough?

Let's say I do have them roll to get sanctuary though. A charisma check (the opposition is the villages) to hide in the village. It's successful, so is scene two legitimate? Yeah I'd say it was. They are in fact hiding in the village. That the inquisitor still might find them is immaterial.


Put another way:

You can equate effectiveness with granting full intent. I roll to hide and so I'm hidden and that's the end of the matter.

Or effectiveness is basically GM decides (with whatever other principles bind that)


My default mode of play is always the latter unless the game very specifically tells me otherwise. As a very rough heuristic, I use how effective I think the action would be (positioning), frame to the next priority relevant decision (for the player character)

EDIT: Cleared some stuff up

 

[innerdude]

You can equate effectiveness with granting full intent. I roll to hide and so I'm hidden and that's the end of the matter.

Or effectiveness is basically GM decides (with whatever other principles bind that)


My default mode of play is always the latter unless the game very specifically tells me otherwise. As a very rough heuristic, I use how effective I think the action would be (positioning), frame to the next priority relevant decision (for the player character)

This is one of those interesting things that I took from Court of Blades / Ironsworn and applied it to my more "trad" running Edge of the Empire Star Wars campaign, which is to be more explicit about "position / effect vs. intent" with the players.

This goes in hand with a major part of the "essence" behind objections to the OP, that in many cases the application of "fiat" by the GM ultimately leads to the exact same outcome as the non-fiat-driven decision space. The difference is from the player's side, the reasoning behind the ruling is made explicit --- player and GM have negotiated the intent, position, and effect from the get go -- there's no question just "how much success" the player is capable of on a given throw of the dice. Once the dice hit the table, the group then understands the "what" behind the level of success.

The "why" can then be retrofitted to suit circumstance. ( <<<< I also get why this is controversial to "sim" / "living world" proponents.)

 

[thefutilist]

This is one of those interesting things that I took from Court of Blades / Ironsworn and applied it to my more "trad" running Edge of the Empire Star Wars campaign, which is to be more explicit about "position / effect vs. intent" with the players.

This goes in hand with a major part of the "essence" behind objections to the OP, that in many cases the application of "fiat" by the GM ultimately leads to the exact same outcome as the non-fiat-driven decision space. The difference is from the player's side, the reasoning behind the ruling is made explicit --- player and GM have negotiated the intent, position, and effect from the get go -- there's no question just "how much success" the player is capable of on a given throw of the dice. Once the dice hit the table, the group then understands the "what" behind the level of success.

The "why" can then be retrofitted to suit circumstance. ( <<<< I also get why this is controversial to "sim" / "living world" proponents.)

Being able to clarify position, effect and intent is great. You can kind of pop the hood, so to speak, such that if things ever get muddled you can sort them out.


There's two big reasons I don't formally use them in the systems currently run:


The first is that the trigger for a conflict tends to clarify them anyway,

You're trying to pick the lock on the safe. Are you actually in conflict with anything? Let's say you are in fact in conflict with the safe then I'll probably state what the other party in the conflict wants unless it's obvious.

You want to unlock the safe and the safe wants to remain locked. So we know what the roll is determining.

Or the player states something that I think over reaches in terms of effect and so I offer a lesser effect instead.

You want to escape the inquisitor but the most you'll be able to manage in this position is to put some distance between the two of you.

I tend to wed the means of achieving a thing very closely with the intent. The dice roll tends to show how effective these means are.

You fail to pick the lock of the safe (failed intent to open the safe) so you try and blow the doors off with dynamite instead. This time the conflict is with the dynamite, it wants to destroy the money inside and you don't want it too.

Although I'm playing The Pool at the moment and the player can take narration authority, which tends to mean they have more control over just how effective something is, which means the conversation before the roll is different.


The second reason I'm less formal is because of social conflicts. Intent matters far less, if at all, and you really are at the mercy of whoever controls the character. In most cases I don't like clarifying intent or effect at all. Although I may signal severity of consequence just to be clear. Although it really is kind of fluid because sometimes someone will say something tat triggers a conflict and sometimes someone will state intent and means.

I want to embarrass the king into letting us go on the quest, is of course the player stating intent and means. Which happens fairly frequently. Yet whether a roll is required might still be subject to precisely what they say. Things can get fuzzy.