Beyond Old and New School - "The Secret That Was Lost"

[TwoSix]

But the contrast should still be valuable within each domain. And, from there, you have some point where the contrast is still valid in aggregate - a place where someone is so excessive in one or more domains that they are simply excessive overall.

If your chosen framework makes the statements of others less useful... that's kind of your own problem, isn't it? I mean, it is your choice to restrict yourself to that framework. It doesn't make him wrong - it just means you need a translation step between frameworks.

The problem is that describing the issue as between "mild and judicious use" and "excessive power-mongering" isn't a framework at all. There's nothing to translate or analyze there to make the statement useful. It's a Goldilocks measurement. I mean, I get that [MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION] thinks you need some fiat, but not too much fiat, or else the players might find out. But I don't know why he thinks that, or where he draws the line between "just enough", "too much", or "too little".

 

[Ahnehnois]

The problem is that describing the issue as between "mild and judicious use" and "excessive power-mongering" isn't a framework at all. There's nothing to translate or analyze there to make the statement useful. It's a Goldilocks measurement. I mean, I get that [MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION] thinks you need some fiat, but not too much fiat, or else the players might find out. But I don't know why he thinks that, or where he draws the line between "just enough", "too much", or "too little".

Which is why "fiat" isn't a meaningful term. It's basically just DMing that you don't like.

If a player kills an NPC that he hates and the DM spares him via some deus ex machina, it's "fiat", and the player has been deprived of his "protagonism". If the PC fails a save against a SOD and the DM spares him, it's not, because the player got what he wanted. In truth, the death or lack thereof of any character was always a choice the DM made, one which is not determined by but merely informed by the rules.

 

[Manbearcat]

I suspect that it might seem open for a while, until the players started to get the sense that it didn't really matter what they interpreted the amorphous thing as being since the mechanical effects of losing the resource are always the same.

That's pretty much how hit points in general went for us. First it was the generic "you deal five damage". Then it was a range of imaginative "you slash this and dodge there and trip him and blood spurts out etc. etc.". Then it was "oh, what the hell, you deal five damage".

Some ambiguity is good (for example, it's fine that a Knowledge skill could refer to book learning or practical experience), but it's important that each mechanical element have some real-world meaning that could be concisely and cogently explained to a layman, and that the ambiguity doesn't go too far.

This seems to be general discontent with D&D Fortune in the Middle mechanical resolution:fictional positioning association/mapping; the "how close does this mechanic hew to simulation of process as I understand it in the real world and make its own internal association." While I understand your concerns here (they are well documented), it is tangential. It is, of course, related to the "cognitive styles" factor in this analysis, which I invoked early on. However, I'm not concerned with immersion here. I'm trying to pin down the nature of mechanics that constitute an "expanding of the imagination" versus those that "contract the imagination" which is what appears to be at the heart of the OP's premise.

Classic Impressionist painters such as Monet, Renoir, Dali obviously leave the association between their work and reality extremely malleable. However, it would be a stretch to say that their work is not deeply on the expansive side of the "imagination continuum."

 

[Ahnehnois]

Almost all decisions and actions should have meaning. The importance of that meaning may vary wildly. The decision to go East or West at the bottom of a staircase has an important meaning to the characters but the players probably won't be aware of that importance when making that decision. Some very important decisions will be or can be made blindly if the players do not have or seek information before making those decisions. I like to provide as much information as possible and reward those who seek more out. The actual decisions made using gained information won't actually be transparent but at least they will be somewhat more informed.

If the players are choosing the East or West stairs, many things are possible. Maybe the East and West converge at the same place and the choice is a meaningless bit of flavor. Maybe one leads to a death trap and the other to unguarded treasure. Maybe the DM prepares one set of encounters, and reality will place them in whichever direction the players go because he doesn't have time to prepare things and not use them.

Maybe there are subtle sensory cues that suggest one way is better than the other. Maybe there is a riddle or bit of symbolism embedded in the choice. Maybe there is information out there but the PCs have to search for it. Maybe whatever information the PCs receive is conflicting. Maybe it's wrong.

There are tons of choices the player may make, and tons of outcomes in the game world, and very complex interactions between the two. I find that the level of influence the players have over their characters' fates is something that needs to be carefully titrated in order to convey the appropriate tone of game the DM is trying to run.

 

[TwoSix]

Which is why "fiat" isn't a meaningful term. It's basically just DMing that you don't like.

If a player kills an NPC that he hates and the DM spares him via some deus ex machina, it's "fiat", and the player has been deprived of his "protagonism". If the PC fails a save against a SOD and the DM spares him, it's not, because the player got what he wanted. In truth, the death or lack thereof of any character was always a choice the DM made, one which is not determined by but merely informed by the rules.

If I were to try to give an objective definition, I would say "fiat" is any DM determination as to the resolution of a player's action that doesn't invoke the resolution rules. I would say both your examples are fiat, personally. If the hated NPC comes back later in the game because of campaign machinations, I think that's kosher. If it's just "Haha, I didn't die, I'm immune to iocane powder because training", that's more fiat.

Not that fiat is inherently bad. Some games are almost all fiat, after all.

 

[Ahnehnois]

This seems to be general discontent with D&D Fortune in the Middle mechanical resolution:fictional positioning association/mapping; the "how close does this mechanic hew to simulation of process as I understand it in the real world and make its own internal association." While I understand your concerns here (they are well documented), it is tangential. It is, of course, related to the "cognitive styles" factor in this analysis, which I invoked early on. However, I'm not concerned with immersion here. I'm trying to pin down the nature of mechanics that constitute an "expanding of the imagination" versus those that "contract the imagination" which is what appears to be at the heart of the OP's premise.

Well, there's a balance here. The human mind is only so creative. By your logic, would simply resolving all actions by rolling a d20 and having them succeed on a result of 10 or higher not encourage imagination? Ignore all those rules. Seems like it would.

Thing is, limitations breed creativity. To me, the limitations worth talking about are the ones that enforce a sense of real physical laws or the ones that keep PCs from becoming too powerful in the game, because they serve some concrete purpose, and give players a framework to imagine around. Too many of those limits, and players' imaginations are constrained. Too few, and the game is so vague it's difficult for the players to connect to it (and thus come up with anything).

Conversely, a daily use limitation (like a healing surge) doesn't serve any concrete purpose that I've ever made made aware of. It's simply a limitation for the sake of limitations. Not helpful.

Classic Impressionist painters such as Monet, Renoir, Dali obviously leave the association between their work and reality extremely malleable. However, it would be a stretch to say that their work is not deeply on the expansive side of the "imagination continuum."D

First time I've ever heard D&D compared to surreal art.

 

[Ahnehnois]

If I were to try to give an objective definition, I would say "fiat" is any DM determination as to the resolution of a player's action that doesn't invoke the resolution rules. I would say both your examples are fiat, personally.

Well, it is invoking a rule (Rule Zero), so there's a contradiction there.

Or you can look at it another way and simply have the DM rationalize every move using the rules. After all, he has control over so many things that it's hard to imagine something that couldn't be done by the book. Who says the NPC didn't have Death Ward on him? Nothing prevents a DM from adding on things like that at the last minute. Contingent spells? Handy healing potions? A convenient +10 circumstance bonus for [insert made-up reason]? Is it any less "fiat-y" if the DM makes something up using mechanics than not using them? There's no reason why some deity watching over the situation couldn't just use his at-will wish spells to force any outcome the DM wants (the literal deus ex machina), while avoiding your literal definition. And that isn't even unreasonable for a some styles of campaign; one could argue that the mythological Hercules pretty much had this going on all the time.

Personally, I'd rather be a little more subtle.

 

[billd91]

The problem is that describing the issue as between "mild and judicious use" and "excessive power-mongering" isn't a framework at all. There's nothing to translate or analyze there to make the statement useful. It's a Goldilocks measurement. I mean, I get that [MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION] thinks you need some fiat, but not too much fiat, or else the players might find out. But I don't know why he thinks that, or where he draws the line between "just enough", "too much", or "too little".

Of course, you don't know where Mercurius draws the line between "just enough", "too much", or "too little" fiat. You're not him. The judgment how much fiat is correct is subjective. And how much is the right amount will vary from player to player, group to group, and sometimes even session to session with the same group. This is one of the reasons that excessively doctrinaire approaches to RPGs and styles of play strike me as problematic. You just end up throwing more obstacles in the path of having a good time with the game than you need to.

 

[TwoSix]

Conversely, a daily use limitation (like a healing surge) doesn't serve any concrete purpose that I've ever made made aware of. It's simply a limitation for the sake of limitations. Not helpful.

I do think that, broadly, daily limitations are actively harmful to the game. What it is about sleep that makes it magically restorative of pretty much everything? I'd much rather see spell load outs balanced by the fact they can only be restored between adventures, with enough downtime required to make the concept of a 15 min working day obsolete.

 

[TwoSix]

Of course, you don't know where Mercurius draws the line between "just enough", "too much", or "too little" fiat. You're not him. The judgment how much fiat is correct is subjective. And how much is the right amount will vary from player to player, group to group, and sometimes even session to session with the same group. This is one of the reasons that excessively doctrinaire approaches to RPGs and styles of play strike me as problematic. You just end up throwing more obstacles in the path of having a good time with the game than you need to.

Well yes, of course. But if he doesn't take the time to explain what makes it good or bad for him, how can I understand what he's talking about, and use it in a way to make my game better? I mean, shouldn't the goal of these discussion be to say "When I play X way, with players who like Y, this concept works and this one doesn't"? It has nothing to do with telling anyone how to play, it's how to find terms so that we discuss with a common language.