Let's talk about "plot", "story", and "play to find out."

[Campbell]

Side rant. One thing that perplexes me is that BitD proponents tend to act like the game is very fleshed out with little to no DM fiat and little the DM can do wrong if he and the players follow the rules and principles, but I see a big potential difference in when, why and how different DMs use clocks and since it’s just a tool in their toolbox without guidance on when you must or must not use them (just that you can) then that seems to introduce much potential for DM Fiat and arbitrariness to put their hand on the scale so to speak.

There is a ton of GM judgement involved. If there wasn't we would not need principles about how to apply that judgement. What it is true is that is that it is all there out in the open. Of course, there are levels of GM skill and group chemistry that have a massive impact on play.

No one is pretending here. The issue most I personally have with fiat is that it's unaccountable - not that there is judgement involved. The reason its effectively unaccountable is that there is all this GM facing machinery and prep that can make it hard to determine what's actually going on.

Note that figuring out what's actually going on can be a lot of fun if the GM is disciplined. The number of GMs I personally know who do it well I can count on one hand.

 

[Fenris-77]

GM judgement and GM fiat also aren't quite the same thing.

 

[Umbran]

I guess I’m lost here. When I was responding to somebody else’s comments way back i was understanding the discussion as about the success or failure of an Action Roll (which has a goal and risk), not of the whole score Conflict.

Yes, and I came in with separate ideas that intersected.

 

[TwoSix]

There is a ton of GM judgement involved. If there wasn't we would not need principles about how to apply that judgement. What it is true is that is that it is all there out in the open. Of course, there are levels of GM skill and group chemistry that have a massive impact on play.

No one is pretending here. The issue most I personally have with fiat is that it's unaccountable - not that there is judgement involved. The reason its effectively unaccountable is that there is all this GM facing machinery and prep that can make it hard to determine what's actually going on.

Yep. The strength of the BitD approach, to me, is that everything is negotiated out in the open. The GM can't leverage "the module" or "the campaign prep" to make a decision unilaterally.

Can the GM decide the PC isn't going to achieve their goal simply by continually escalating challenges tremendously whenever a roll is failed? Of course. But when that happens, it's very clear that the GM is making a conscious and deliberate choice to do so in that moment.

 

[FrogReaver]

GM judgement and GM fiat also aren't quite the same thing.

You’re right. It seems they only are when it’s D&D

 

[Fenris-77]

You’re right. It seems they only are when it’s D&D

No, they are two very different things. I'm not really concerned with how yoiks deploy the term GM fiat all willy-nilly in threads about D&D.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Well, in the bog standard approach to play, the character goals are not cleanly separable from the character goals - the game, character, and character goals should be chosen in alignment, so that the gameplay action of driving the character to attempt to reach their goals produces what the player wants, whatever that is.

I note this is not narrative-play dependent. It is a broad thing about playing games.

I mean yeah, I think pretty standard way to design a RPG is that the player tries to accomplish their character's goals, and use the available mechanics to do so, and this results fun gameplay. There could be other assumptions, but I think those generally will be harder to design for.

 

[Fenris-77]

I mean yeah, I think pretty standard way to design a RPG is that the player tries to accomplish their character's goals, and use the available mechanics to do so, and this results fun gameplay. There could be other assumptions, but I think those generally will be harder to design for.

This seems to miss rather a lot of specific design goals that go into designing RPGs. I mean it's not wrong but I don't think it really describes RPG design either.

 

[Umbran]

This seems to miss rather a lot of specific design goals that go into designing RPGs. I mean it's not wrong but I don't think it really describes RPG design either.

Not in detail, no. But, aren't the specific design goals done in alignment with that general premise?

We might change, "results in fun gameplay," with "results in the player's desired play experience".

 

[thefutilist]

Well, in the bog standard approach to play, the character goals are not cleanly separable from the character goals - the game, character, and character goals should be chosen in alignment, so that the gameplay action of driving the character to attempt to reach their goals produces what the player wants, whatever that is.
.

It’s where author decision meta-mechanics can get tricky. Does the game assume that you the player wants their character to succeed? Some of my favourite characters, I’ve wanted them to fail because they’re morally repugnant. So if meta-mechanics exist, I’d use them to actively harm the characters chances. Although this is still using meta-mechanics to try and achieve my (the players) preferred fictional state.