Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="buzz" data-source="post: 3139713" data-attributes="member: 6777">Well, I'd agree that the above situation is not going to work in any system, as you're basically describing a GM who has created undetectable uber-guards and is staunchly refusing any intent that changes that fact. FWIW, at least I know he's doing this ahead of time in the conflict/intent method, and can just not roll and try and figure out another way to get what I want. In D&D, the DM doesn't have to tell me any of this up front; I could roll and he can ignore the result and my character is caught. You can hear the train coming down the tracks. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Okay, but again, I think then we're going far beyond the scope of the GM fiat issue. Nobody is arguing that a game can solve a faulty social contract, but I was assuming that we were talking about a functioning group as a basis for assessing GM fiat.Right, and I'm not arguing that. My posts were initially in response to the claim that GM fiat is part-and-parcel of all roleplaying, and I didn't agree, and had examples from existing games to share.I would argue, though, that the more latitude you give the GM, the more prone the game is going to be to abuse, even form the well-intentioned. The simple fact that the DMG, DMG2, the latest Dungeoncraft article from Monte Cook, and a host of DM'ing advice written over the years specifically address the issue of fairness is demonstrative of the enormous game-ruining potential of DM fiat.Sure, you can say, "Well, don't play with crappy DMs, then." This is easier said than done, as the many tales of cat-piss men you can find on gaming fora will attest to. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Ergo, I, personally, really like how a lot of new RPGs handle things with more checks and balances, as well as explicit procedures for intents and outcomes. I think it minimizes the dependence on the skill level of the GM. To me, that's pretty cool. It's gets the system-handling out of the way so we can focus on the game being played.</blockquote>

Verification