GM fiat - an illustration

[Micah Sweet]

Exactly. I would assume that my Alarm spell would fail as the default assumption, with one or more of the sorts of reasons given here, or possibly others (land sharks attack from below, no Alarm!).

Why would you assume the DM will create a situation in the moment where your preparations are useless? What reason would they have to intentionally generate that outcome?

 

[Bill Zebub]

GM is controlling opposition. That is, by definition, not neutral nor impartial. For obvious reasons. I honestly can't believe that I have to spell it out.

Yes, this. I find GM'ing to be a weird conflict between being a fan of the PCs, and trying to kill them.

Because of this tension, one type of "GM fiat" I actually don't like, and happily cede to RNG when it's available, is having to decide on each round of combat what enemies will do with their actions.

 

[Maxperson]

The spell says "an alarm alerts you whenever a creature touches or enters the warded area." It doesn't say that the PCs become aware of the thread - rather, it says that the alarm either rings like a bell or creates a mental ping. But the creature might be invisible, or hiding behind a low wall, or clinging to the shadowy ceiling.

So you are alerted that something is there, but not aware that something is there? And that makes sense to you? Also, invisible is irrelevant. You don't have to see the threat to be aware of it. An invisible creature still does not get surprise on you.

If you are alerted to the presence of the trigger, you are aware of the threat.

 

[Emerikol]

This whole debate is why I try to come up with close order action drills for all the enemies ahead of time. I make the instructions appropriate to the intelligence and abilities of the monsters. This helps me to guard against any bias. If the players come up with a really innovative way to overcome the enemy I don't retrofit in something else.

In the case of an alarm spell, it is almost certain to work well enough against a pack of orcs or goblins at first level. If though, they are on the run from some enemy with a lot of magical power (and at higher levels this is a lot of them), then they should expect some challenge to their alarm.

So at higher levels, my players would employ a lot more defenses than just an alarm spell if they even used it.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Yes, this. I find GM'ing to be a weird conflict between being a fan of the PCs, and trying to kill them.

Because of this tension, one type of "GM fiat" I actually don't like, and happily cede to RNG when it's available, is having to decide on each round of combat what enemies will do with their actions.

On this I find that I prefer to push hard on actively maximising the potential for hurting the PCs, taking into account of course the opponents intelligence and regard for personal survival. Not being faithful to the monster feels less fun for me, and that I'm engaging in illusionism rather than playing a game.

In one of our sessions, the party were fighting an entity that could actively Shapechange continuously and change the terrain (lair action) in their prison plane. Instead of using the concentration mechanic, I decided to use hit point loss as a way to force each Shapechange.
I drew up a list of 20 possible creatures and their respective interestingly unique terrains with the goal of using dice to determine the next randomised Shapechange. At some point through, I ignored the dice in favour of selecting creatures and terrain from the list that (I believed) would maximise the fun output for all at the table.

So for instance having Shapechanged into X I ignored the option of using Y per the die roll (as perhaps I thought it too similar to a previous option the party experienced) compared to Shapechanging the opponent into say a minotaur (DM selected) whose maze would split the party and which maze would open and alter to the minotaur's whim as it ran and gored it's lone victims.

 

[Maxperson]

Here's a TRPG with rules that contain the entire game
View attachment 399436

There doesn't exist a single situation that isn't covered by the rules. What now?

I mean, there really aren't much in the way of rules there. Action is basically rule 0. DM fiat all the way! Duel is also not really a rule. The only difference is that the players are the ones with the fiat power there. Those "rules" are just a bunch of people giving subjective opinions about things and calling it a day.

But, according to those "rules" there, you only call for a duel if things get heated or stands in your way and won't budge. So what happens if for your action prior to that you challenge someone to a duel? Well, according to action the DM tells you what will happen, but since duel can't happen as it's not appropriate, the DM has to describe something other than a duel as the result. Which you can then refuse and use as not budging on engaging a duel and engage a duel. But if that's the case, then why didn't the "rules" just allow the duel in the first place?

The "rules" don't really cover that situation.

 

[thefutilist]

I mean… every DM can come up with an enemy that can bypass the alarm spell. It’s trivially easy to do so and then to simply cite (or make up) reasons that their decisions “make sense” and then justifying it all as “fun”.

The Alarm spell is rife with points where this can happen.

Now, that may be fine with you (or anyone else). You may prefer to rely that much on the GM “getting it right” and the effect it has on player agency. But that doesn’t change what it is.

Well when it's made up, how and the reasons/criteria/principles matter.

To use my example from several posts back. If the GM creates a competent hunter at the start of the scenario. Then the hunter is tracking the players and the GM uses what they know about the hunter and how the alarm is positioned to make the call. That's very different from deciding they want to have a fight, so then they create someone who can bypasses the alarm.

One is taking the fiction into account to decide what happens, the other is deciding what they want to happen and then creating the fiction.

EDIT: The first is is why I roleplay, the second is destructive of the medium.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Why would you assume the DM will create a situation in the moment where your preparations are useless? What reason would they have to intentionally generate that outcome?

Because they think it will be fun. Or they think it will be challenging.

Many posters are advocating for this level of GM fiat in the process of play, specifically in this case, for the alarm spell. An alternative take on the Alarm spell was offered... one from Torchbearer 2e, in which the processes of play don't rely so heavily on GM fiat.

Do you think it's unreasonable to expect those who are advocating for the GM fiat heavy version to exercise that power?

Yes, this. I find GM'ing to be a weird conflict between being a fan of the PCs, and trying to kill them.

Because of this tension, one type of "GM fiat" I actually don't like, and happily cede to RNG when it's available, is having to decide on each round of combat what enemies will do with their actions.

I love when games take some kind of measures to mitigate this.

For example, in the Alien RPG, the xenomorphs have some actions that are incredibly lethal... they can easily kill a PC in one hit. So the game requires that the GM roll a die on a xeno's turn to see what action it takes. It's an effective way to disclaim decision making on the part of the GM.

So you are alerted that something is there, but not aware that something is there? And that makes sense to you? Also, invisible is irrelevant. You don't have to see the threat to be aware of it. An invisible creature still does not get surprise on you.

If you are alerted to the presence of the trigger, you are aware of the threat.

I would say that you are aware of A threat, but not necessarily THE threat.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The thing with the alarm spell example is it sounds like the gm isn’t being hugely impartial if he is allowing the assassin to take all those measures against it

 

[pemerton]

Why would you assume the DM will create a situation in the moment where your preparations are useless? What reason would they have to intentionally generate that outcome?

For the answer, read @bloodtide's posts! - which are what @AbdulAlhazred was responding to.