Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 9227697" data-attributes="member: 6795602">I'd propose that nothing counts as actual DM fiat by this definition.There is no game that gives the GM carte blanche to at any point declare something like rocks fall you die (as an extreme example).&nbsp; This hopefully illustrates that the GM decision space is always curated.&nbsp; I think maybe there's some discussion to be had around the importance of system constraint vs social contract constraint vs Norm constraint - but in any event the GM is constrained.&nbsp; I'm not sure why GM fiat would just be system constrained vs any constrained in any way.I'm not trying to obliterate any distinctions - i'm trying to be more accurate in my speech.&nbsp; That accuracy will still allow the conceptual distinction to be discussed, it just will draw more clear lines around independent concepts, and what combinations can exist.&nbsp; There's 2 overarching points here -1.&nbsp; System isn't the only thing that restricts DMs, there's norms and social contract as well.2.&nbsp; All systems do restrict DM's.&nbsp; -I'm going to post the 5e SRD on ability checks next.This seems like it applies equally to what happens when narrating the outcome of a failed roll.The inputs and choices made in framing are systemically constrained and informed (both the mechanics and components of play that inform the constituent parts of the framing&quot; and the GM doesn't just get to opt-in/out of their system-directed job at their discretion.Seems to me the difference boils down to - we are trying to examine the fundamental concepts and instead of walking through that discussion i'm just being bombarded with 'this is the way it is, thus saith the authoritys!'There's about 100 apriors to get to your conception.&nbsp; Closely examining all the relevant ones and their relationships i'm sure feels like going aimlessly to one thing from another but it's really fundamental.&nbsp; The concepts, counter concepts and counter-counter concepts being brought up form a web of meaning and disagreeing with even a few strands may make the entire web unstable.&nbsp; It's not to work to an 'aha, i tricked you moment', it's to work toward a shared understanding of an incredibly complex set of ideas.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 9227697, member: 6795602"] I'd propose that nothing counts as actual DM fiat by this definition. There is no game that gives the GM carte blanche to at any point declare something like rocks fall you die (as an extreme example). This hopefully illustrates that the GM decision space is always curated. I think maybe there's some discussion to be had around the importance of system constraint vs social contract constraint vs Norm constraint - but in any event the GM is constrained. I'm not sure why GM fiat would just be system constrained vs any constrained in any way. I'm not trying to obliterate any distinctions - i'm trying to be more accurate in my speech. That accuracy will still allow the conceptual distinction to be discussed, it just will draw more clear lines around independent concepts, and what combinations can exist. There's 2 overarching points here - 1. System isn't the only thing that restricts DMs, there's norms and social contract as well. 2. All systems do restrict DM's. -I'm going to post the 5e SRD on ability checks next. This seems like it applies equally to what happens when narrating the outcome of a failed roll. The inputs and choices made in framing are systemically constrained and informed (both the mechanics and components of play that inform the constituent parts of the framing" and the GM doesn't just get to opt-in/out of their system-directed job at their discretion. Seems to me the difference boils down to - we are trying to examine the fundamental concepts and instead of walking through that discussion i'm just being bombarded with 'this is the way it is, thus saith the authoritys!' There's about 100 apriors to get to your conception. Closely examining all the relevant ones and their relationships i'm sure feels like going aimlessly to one thing from another but it's really fundamental. The concepts, counter concepts and counter-counter concepts being brought up form a web of meaning and disagreeing with even a few strands may make the entire web unstable. It's not to work to an 'aha, i tricked you moment', it's to work toward a shared understanding of an incredibly complex set of ideas. [/QUOTE]

Verification