GM fiat - an illustration

[Micah Sweet]

Right, but what's fair? Is it simply "per the rules"? Or is it something else?

If it's something else, how do we determine what's fair?

We make our own choices and accept the consequences, positive or negative.

 

[hawkeyefan]

We make our own choices and accept the consequences, positive or negative.

Sure, that's a way to handle it.

Another way would be to do so in a way where the rules are clear and work without leaving such huge swaths that require interpretation.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, that's a way to handle it.

Another way would be to do so in a way where the rules are clear and work without leaving such huge swaths that require interpretation.

I see no benefit to forcing the kinds of restrictions you want, to be honest.

 

[thefutilist]

Sure, that's a way to handle it.

Another way would be to do so in a way where the rules are clear and work without leaving such huge swaths that require interpretation.

I'm not sure you can.

Your plan might not work because the GM thinks it's a dumb idea is the core gameplay loop and that's always going to have the potential for hurt feelings no matter how much you dress it up. I don't mean this in a disparaging way either. Pedantic and Micah play so that their friends can judge their ideas.

 

[bloodtide]

This to me reads exactly like someone who thinks they know better than anyone else.

Or just go by what I type instead of looking for some secret hidden meaning.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'm not sure you can.

Your plan might not work because the GM thinks it's a dumb idea is the core gameplay loop and that's always going to have the potential for hurt feelings no matter how much you dress it up. I don't mean this in a disparaging way either. Pedantic and Micah play so that their friends can judge their ideas.

Two things on that... I think that a given approach to an obstacle being impossible is certainly possible in most games. Usually, it's obvious. If it's not, then some discussion is needed to help clarify. I don't know if that's exactly what you mean by the "GM thinking it's a dumb idea", though. If it's just something the GM doesn't find aesthetically pleasing, that's something else.

As for the point of play being for the players to judge the GM's ideas... that kind of comes across as almost the opposite dynamic of what should be expected. But if that's the focus of play, then sure, I don't see a problem with fuzzy rules and processes that require an increase in GM fiat. It's probably even ideal... it offers more opportunities for the players to see the GM's storytelling ability in action!

 

[hawkeyefan]

Or just go by what I type instead of looking for some secret hidden meaning.

In what world are not caring what some fool printed in a book, not caring what other GMs think, and disagreeing with players considered to be anything other than thinking you know better than them?

I am going off what you typed. There's no hidden meaning... it's right there in the open.

But if you want to elaborate... okay. Why don't you care what designers may put into their rules?

Why don't you care what other GMs think?

Why do you disagree with players?

 

[Pedantic]

I'm not sure you can.

Your plan might not work because the GM thinks it's a dumb idea is the core gameplay loop and that's always going to have the potential for hurt feelings no matter how much you dress it up. I don't mean this in a disparaging way either. Pedantic and Micah play so that their friends can judge their ideas.

Woah, we're not interchangeable. I think games can and should specify all possible points of interaction while still using task resolution; plans are built out of stacking actions drawn from a set of pre-knowable mechanics. My sense of Micah is that they're more amenable to GM designed resolutions moment to moment.

I am specifically opposed to negotiation as a standard part of the gameplay loop. I never want to sell anyone on whether or not a proposed action should work nor do I want to discuss the scope of an action's effectiveness.

 

[pemerton]

There are tables to roll on to answer questions like that. Tables that can (and IMO should) take setting logic into account.

As I posted upthread - one natural destination for this line of thinking is a systematisation of the tables, when you roll on them, how they are modified, etc. And - voila! - you've replaced your Alarm spell with Aetherial Premonitions.

 

[pemerton]

Also I don’t see why it is a problem if the GM is making something up in the moment, if players are going in directions no one expected. How the GM invents in that space will vary from GM to GM. Who cares?

The OP didn't say that anything is a problem.

I think @Micah Sweet said that a GM who makes stuff up in the moment that circumvents the Alarm spell is a jerk. I took you to more-or-less agree with that upthread. So you two seem to care, and to think that it can be a problem.