GM fiat - an illustration

pemerton said:

I have quoted these two posts together, because I think that the second rebuts the first - in that it shows how/why the assassin who takes extensive measures to defeat the Alarm spell needn't be unfair at all - or at least, not in any straightforward way.

I think there are some potential challenges to fairness posed even in your first scenario, though. The GM uses what they know about the hunter to make the call - but does the hunter know exactly when the Alarm spell was cast? If they guess, based on their knowledge of the PCs' travel pattern and the time of sunset and so on, how accurate is their estimate? Do they correctly identify the warded 20' cube? Do they correctly intuit the caster's selection of ringing bell vs the mental ping - because in the former case, they are going to release their own silence effect to negate the ringing?

Click to expand...

I am not saying you can't have clever enemies who bypass spells, even the alarm spell. I am less in love with premade action plans, but that is maybe a matter of taste (personally I would have the NPC react in real time to what the players are doing). But the assassin-alarm spell example just reeks of unfair GM practices. It may not. I am not saying it could never happen. But I would want to make sure the GM isn't simply just saying: the assassin does X Y and Z to get around it. I would make that NPC make some checks at each step, I would also give players opportunities, probably in the form of rolls, to see. Normally I would also roll these things in the open. Given it is a secret assassin, I might simply write my numbers down so I can explain to the players what happened after. But I may actually say to a player "Roll 2d10" and get results that way. It might make them more cautious and give them metagame knowledge, so you have to be careful. But an NPC who literally counts down rounds till a spell ends (and knows exactly what spell and when the round count beings and ends? That is pretty miraculous. You at least need a check to know what spell. but then counting down how long the spell lasts? He better have a metronome with him or something

thefutilist said:

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.

Click to expand...

This is an extremely important point. This is why GMs need to prep ahead of time. They need to use wandering creature charts they made or got up ahead of time. If a wandering monster comes up who can circumvent the alarm that is valid. If another that can't comes up that is valid too and it should be played.

AnotherGuy said:

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.

Click to expand...

I think some of my tension/reticence here is that I feel like it's me fighting the players, instead of the monster. It's hard enough to get into the headspace of one character, when I'm playing not GMing, let along trying to "be" all these different monsters. I don't know how to be, as you put it, "faithful to the monster".

Bill Zebub said:

I think some of my tension/reticence here is that I feel like it's me fighting the players, instead of the monster. It's hard enough to get into the headspace of one character, when I'm playing not GMing, let along trying to "be" all these different monsters. I don't know how to be, as you put it, "faithful to the monster".

Click to expand...

You write stuff down ahead of time. You flesh out the NPCs motivations. How hard is it for you to guess your favorite sitcom characters actions? Not hard right? You need to know your NPCs/Monsters well enough and have enough written down that when you do have to make a judgment call it is done fairly.

As a GM, you have to view yourself as an entertainer. Now for me that means offering a fair game but for others fairness doesn't matter just cater to the PCs. My PCs want a fair game because they want to win through smart play and achieve their victories. They don't want to just act out them.

AbdulAlhazred said:

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!).

Click to expand...

Assuming it will always fail is a bit too far.

hawkeyefan said:

Players generally sit and talk. That's what they do. They declare actions for their characters.

Of all the other elements of RPGing... narration to frame a scene, worldbuilding to create the setting, deciding what NPCs are where and what they want, what each faction is up to, deciding DCs, calling for rolls.... which of these functions do you allow your players to do?

Click to expand...

None of that.

hawkeyefan said:

I find your point that I can't be a half troll warlock in football to be rather useless to the discussion.

Click to expand...

Well, you can't be anything in football except a football player.

hawkeyefan said:

No, but it alters reality to create the warded area. The DM then alters reality to render the spell useless.

Click to expand...

Accurate as altering game reality is what DMs do.

hawkeyefan said:

The DM uses their incredibly unbound authority to bypass the player's bit of agency and then you call it:

Click to expand...

The easy way around here is to just say: the players have no agency.

hawkeyefan said:

That's pretty amazing, to me. How is it brilliant?

Click to expand...

By creating a unique game experience.

hawkeyefan said:

Can you make a coherent argument why not?

Click to expand...

Yes

Micah Sweet said:

For my part, the DM should never just make up a reason on the spot why the PCs can't go where they want, and it's unlikely my players would stand for it if I did.

Click to expand...

I find this to be an odd statement. At least half of all DMs have to create stuff on the spot at least half the time. It is a big part of the DMs job.

But why do you say a DM can't, no the spot, just make up a reason why the PCs can't go where they want? Like if a player was to just say on the spot "my PC walks over and into the back vault", as a DM I would on the spot be quick to say "sorry the vault door is locked, so you can't just walk into the vault".

It's like when the players randomly just say "we want to go to the Island of Akk" and I inform them the bridge connecting the island to the mainland was washed out recently. Hostile players get all up in arms and rant and rave that the DM is blocking them. Intelligent players know that events happen in the simulated game world and are not targeted at the players. Though, often enough, foes may target the characters.

hawkeyefan said:

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.

Click to expand...

I hate when games do this, and will simply ignore them.

The idea that a foe does a random action is silly. Though it is already bad enough the foe only gets three combat actions. This is very much like a board game.

Some players take comfort from the idea of "the monster can only do one of three actions", and it's great for many game styles, like casual games. For a more complex game, a foe can do nearly anything the DM wants on a whim.

pemerton said:

One technique I would use was to resort to random rolls - say, assigning a percentage chance to a NPC doing this or that, and thereby triggering the spell or not.

Click to expand...

I do like random rolls for some of this. In my game, NPCs are either fools, smart, or somewhere in the middle. Those 'middle' NPCs will get a roll.

hawkeyefan said:

But there's a huge gulf between being out to get the players and holding their hands.

Click to expand...

It is not so huge of a gulf. You hold the players hands, roll out the red carpet, are a fan of the characters and let the players always push the easy button................or you don't. There is no middle.

thefutilist said:

@Manbearcat

I think I agree but we'll see.


If fiat is used to force outcomes based on stuff like, what the GM wants to happen, to keep the plot moving, to provide a challenge. Then I agree that that specific approach isn't conducive to challenge based play. The correct attitude would seem to be something along the lines of 'you're not here to win (or entertain) but to see if the players can overcome stuff as fairly as possible and according to your best judgement.'


Which isn't enough alone but it's the guiding principle by which subsequent procedures and principles are judged.


To give an example using the 5E alarm.


The party is being pursued by Henrik Headhunter but they need to go into the Dungeon anyway. The Mage sets an alarm at the entrance. The GM must now use fiat to decide whether Henrik triggers the alarm when he enters the Dungeon after them. They could for instance decide based on some combination of what they know about Henrik and how cunningly they judge the alarm to be placed. They know Henrik is smart and capable and they don't think the alarm was cunningly placed and there is at least a possible way for Henrik to avoid it and so Henrik slips past undetected.


That's a case of fiat use that illustrates, to me, why you'd want to play a challenge based RPG.

So if you're saying the fiat in the Henrik example is bogus then we have a disagreement. If you're not then we might just by taking past each other. I agree that all the examples you gave were non-conductive to challenge based play but the above might get to the crux of it.

Click to expand...

As an aside, for whatever reason, this didn't come up in my mentions. Headscratcher.

I think we're on the same page here. What you've written above is pretty much where I land. However, what I would say is the following:

* A game that features challenge-based priorities as its apex interests should be situating its GM so that they are (a) compelled to generate interesting, multivariate decision-points at each consequential moment of play (which should be most moments of play) and then (b) arming them via system to bring about those same complex and provocative decision-points. Finally, if the game is interested in a strategic layer (many challenge-based games very much do, but not all), then (c) the throughline of play should reflect that. Put another way, the moments of decision-points should stack in a coherent way, via the system and the GM working thoughtfully in concert, to create viable opposition to player goals. At the same time, the player's longterm considerations, decisions, mustering of means and management of system-levers should be able to be qualitatively evaluated as more or less skillful in gamestate management (in contrast with an alternative regime of play).

* To take your specific example, it is very much preferrable to me when it comes to challenge-based priorities for a system to eschew GM decision-making when it comes to the very important question of whether the gamestate is positively impacted (positive here meaning player's move made is successful and that success feeds into subsquent situation/obstacle-framing) which then feeds into the framing of subsequent play. So we need to find out if the PC Wizard's Alarm spell at the opening of the dungeon is foiled or triggered by NPC Henrik Headhunter? Cool. Here is some (much more desirable to GM fiat in this case) scheme of systemitized resolution:

GM: "Alright Wizard, I need you to set the value of any vs test for your Alarm. Roll Arcana."

Player: <Wizard player feels like this is important so the muster some currency, spending it in a wager that the dice pool amplification will in turn amplify their Alarm spell> "I got 5 successes! I pour half of my vial of quicksilver and pouch of pixie dust (perhaps that is 2 out of 4 supplies) carefully along the periphery of my Alarm spell, enriching the magical field with those arcane contents!"

GM: One of the obstacles here is Henrik Headhunter's pursuit. Now we resolve Henrik's portion of the vs test. GM rolls Henrik's Dungeoneer 8 (rather than Hunter 10 as, let us say that Dungeoneer is the overcoming of traps laid rather than stalking and trapping) vs those 5 successes. GM doesn't like the odds. Henrik is capable and it would be desirable for him to maintain his stalking status of which the Wizard's Alarm going off would foil (and perhaps harm Henrik in some way, pending how Alarm is written in this prospective system). The GM decides to muster and spends some of Henrik's limited currency for the test; gains 2 more dice for 10.

Henrik generates enough successes to foil the Alarm. Now, rather than asserting the conflicting fictions (who is more capable, the Wizard or Henrik?) and subordinating the question of control over the gamestate (the question of gamestate control is the central piece of challenge-based play afterall) to GM discretion, we spend some of Henrik's future resources (thereby lowering his capabilities in conflicts to follow) to help enshrine the fiction that (a) Henrik is just as shrewd and capable as we imagined him while (b) managing to maintain the integrity of the question of gamestate control via authentically resolving this collision by way of system and participant decision-making around the tactical and strategic layer of play.

Circling back, maybe the system isn't particularly robust such that it can handle all of the above in such a fashion. Maybe it requires GM discretion. Ok. But the reality is, that is a decision around gamestate impact/control that the GM is asserting via fiat when an alternative model that doesn't subordinate that very important question of gamestate impact/control (which doesn't just impact this particular moment of player, but reverberates forward into subsequent play) might be available. I think it is trivially true that integrity of challenge-based priorities is far better maintained one way vs the other. I'm not saying resolution via GM fiat utterly cripples the integrity of challenge-based priorities, but...it definitely harms it by contrast at a minimum. Further, the more you stack these moments, the more harm to the integrity of the question of gamestate control you're generating.

The same phenomena can be seen in sports where a referee's judgement call (like the Strike/Ball call in a 1-1 count with runners on base in Baseball or a Defensive Holding call on 3rd and 7 in American Football) in a particularly gamestate-sensitive situation will reverberate into future gamestates and the more you stack those, the less "the game is being decided on the field" as the adage goes.

Hopefully that makes sense and clarifies our overlap and the potential daylight between us.

bloodtide said:

Assuming it will always fail is a bit too far.


None of that.

Well, you can't be anything in football except a football player.

Accurate as altering game reality is what DMs do.

The easy way around here is to just say: the players have no agency.

By creating a unique game experience.

Yes

I find this to be an odd statement. At least half of all DMs have to create stuff on the spot at least half the time. It is a big part of the DMs job.

But why do you say a DM can't, no the spot, just make up a reason why the PCs can't go where they want? Like if a player was to just say on the spot "my PC walks over and into the back vault", as a DM I would on the spot be quick to say "sorry the vault door is locked, so you can't just walk into the vault".

It's like when the players randomly just say "we want to go to the Island of Akk" and I inform them the bridge connecting the island to the mainland was washed out recently. Hostile players get all up in arms and rant and rave that the DM is blocking them. Intelligent players know that events happen in the simulated game world and are not targeted at the players. Though, often enough, foes may target the characters.


I hate when games do this, and will simply ignore them.

The idea that a foe does a random action is silly. Though it is already bad enough the foe only gets three combat actions. This is very much like a board game.

Some players take comfort from the idea of "the monster can only do one of three actions", and it's great for many game styles, like casual games. For a more complex game, a foe can do nearly anything the DM wants on a whim.


I do like random rolls for some of this. In my game, NPCs are either fools, smart, or somewhere in the middle. Those 'middle' NPCs will get a roll.


It is not so huge of a gulf. You hold the players hands, roll out the red carpet, are a fan of the characters and let the players always push the easy button................or you don't. There is no middle.

Click to expand...

First of all, I said shouldn't, not can't. Secondly, a PC can try anything, but there's no guarantee of success.

Maxperson said:

And there are millions of potential actions they can declare for those characters that are not covered by the rules. I encounter them all the time and have to make rulings. And countless more where the rule that covers the situation doesn't make sense in these particular circumstances, and so should be changed in order to be fair about it.

No I'm not.

That's also DM Fiat.

Click to expand...

But it IS possible, not as D&D is structured, but it is just as possible as it is in basketball. Dungeon World's rules are equally universal. Neither basketball nor DW leads to constrained play, there are infinite situations which can arise in either one. Actually I think basketball is LESS complete, as it is structured around likely capabilities of athletes. If the players were the X Men it would fail. DW doesn't really care, as it is only rules in reference to the process of play and how the narrative arises.

bloodtide said:

Well, you can't be anything in football except a football player.

Click to expand...

In nearly all RPGs, you'll either be a player or a GM.

In football, you can be a quarterback or a linebacker or a punter or a guard... there are many positions which then determine how you contribute to play.

bloodtide said:

The easy way around here is to just say: the players have no agency.

Click to expand...

Right. This is largely the point. The more GM fiat, the less player agency.

Some people actually want their players to have agency.

bloodtide said:

By creating a unique game experience.

Click to expand...

I don't know how unique it is to watch a GM, unconstrained by any rules and with unlimited fictional resources, shoot down player ideas.

Hopefully, it becomes increasingly so. But it's also not brilliant. It's about the lowest form of GMing I can imagine.

bloodtide said:

I hate when games do this, and will simply ignore them.

The idea that a foe does a random action is silly. Though it is already bad enough the foe only gets three combat actions. This is very much like a board game.

Some players take comfort from the idea of "the monster can only do one of three actions", and it's great for many game styles, like casual games. For a more complex game, a foe can do nearly anything the DM wants on a whim.

Click to expand...

Xenomorphs in the Aliens movies often do odd things at times. They're not exactly understandable... so having them behave in unexpected ways mimics that. It also allows the game to function in a fairer way.

If you were to GM it, and ignore that rule in favor of deciding what happens by fiat, what happens is the Xenomorph simply uses its deadliest attack every time. This goes against the game's design. There's a reason that restriction is in place. Removing it has impacts that need to be addressed in some other way.

bloodtide said:

It is not so huge of a gulf. You hold the players hands, roll out the red carpet, are a fan of the characters and let the players always push the easy button................or you don't. There is no middle.

Click to expand...

Tagging @Micah Sweet , @Maxperson , and @Bedrockgames ... I know you guys aren't anywhere as extreme as bloodtide here... but this is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. A GM who does whatever he wants because he thinks he knows better than the designers, other GMs, and all his players. I don't think things need to get even remotely close to this extreme for this to be a consideration in how a game functions.

Micah Sweet said:

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?

Click to expand...

Well, that may be an unclear way to say it. I'm not saying the GM will or should always come up with a loophole and bypass my alarm. I'm just saying I need to expect that in the type of play involved (@bloodtide style test-of-skill).

Now, we could go from this observation into the questions of coherency between play structure and objectives in modern trad play. I wasn't really eager to drag the thread there, though it is pretty closely related to @pemerton 's OP... Let's just say that your play IMHO falls into a bit different category. I think we're closer to each other in agenda then either of us is to test-of-skill.