GM fiat - an illustration

pemerton said:

So are you arguing that, if a character is successfully stealthy, they don't trigger the Alarm spell?

Click to expand...

No. Where would you get that idea from?

pemerton said:

Or are you arguing that an Alarm spell breaks stealth? I don't see where the spell rules say that. Nor, to me, does it make any sense. Just because the alarm starts ringing, doesn't mean that I spot the ninja.

Click to expand...

The alarm goes off whether you are stealthy or not, alerting the caster to the threat. Being aware of a threat is enough to prevent surprise, even if stealth is in effect and the caster can't see the threat. The stealth threat can still get any bonuses that key off of stealth, but cannot get the benefits of surprise.

If I'm in a building and the fire alarm goes off because a fire started two floors above me, I'm still alerted to the threat of the fire, even if I can't see or smell it.

AbdulAlhazred said:

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.

Click to expand...

I can't think of any rule in basketball that is dependent or structured around athletic ability. That's why it can be played by kids single digit years old all the way up to old men who can barely walk, and just about everyone in-between.

Basketball has finite situations. You can dribble the ball. You can shoot the ball. If you are behind the three point line you get three points from a successful shot. If not you get two. And so on through the rules that limit what you can do and dictate what the penalties are if you break those rules. And the players are not, and can never be the x-men, because this is the real world. You might as well say, "If the players were all God, it would fail."

hawkeyefan said:

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.

Click to expand...

I'm not entirely certain about that. When @bloodtide first arrived on the site, I was aghast at the things he said he did in his game. He claimed to railroad all over the place, and said other rather extreme things. However, over time when he described instances of gameplay and how he did things, it became apparent that he didn't railroad(or at least not nearly to the extent claimed), but rather tends not to explain himself well or clearly. I do think he's more extreme that I am for sure, but not the the extent that it appears.

He may feel that way, or he may not. Heck if I know!

hawkeyefan said:

I mean... just read his posts in this thread to get what he does.

Click to expand...

Except not really. This is from one of his replies to you.

"Well, "knows better" does not really fit.

But sure I utterly don't care about anything any fool had printed in a book. If I like it I might use it, if not I will flick the book off the table and laugh. I sure don't put "the designers" on some pedestal and think every typed word is sacrosanct.

And I have never cared about what all the other GMs or think.

And I don't agree with many players, and sure don't think that I "work for them" as their personal DM.

I do what I think makes for a good fun game. And I have a long track record, and plenty of fans. And plenty of hate filled opponents, but you can't make everyone happy...."

That's just a very extreme way to say that he doesn't have a problem house ruling parts of the game that get in the way of how he likes to play the game, just like most of us do and have done since 1e.

I've house ruled every edition that I've played when I come across a rule that I either don't like, or don't like the specific implementation of.

Micah Sweet said:

I make a call when I have to but always with setting logic at or close to top of mind.

Click to expand...

Sure. I think people very often have setting logic at or close to top of mind.

But setting logic won't tell us whether or not there is a Nightblade available for hire to this person on this occasion; nor whether or not that Nightblade is going to detect the PCs' Waiting Illusion, and thus circumvent it.

AnotherGuy said:

That is how I run things in D&D, no matter the edition.

Click to expand...

In AD&D there are passages in the DMG that suggest (without being entirely clear) the random selection of targets in melee.

Generally, in AD&D I'm much more wary than in 4e D&D of how I decide to push the PCs (and thus the players) hard. In AD&D, depleting a PC's hp is, in itself, punishment. In 4e D&D, applying hp loss as a consequence for failed checks, or as part of the resolution of a p 42 action, signals the fictional "heft" of the situation but doesn't punish the player, insofar as their PC can spend a healing surge and so be capable of surviving another combat (or whatever).

Maxperson said:

If I'm in a building and the fire alarm goes off because a fire started two floors above me, I'm still alerted to the threat of the fire, even if I can't see or smell it.

Click to expand...

If I'm in a bank, and the alarm goes off because a ninja triggered it, how am I alert to the threat of the ninja hiding in the shadowy ceiling above me?

pemerton said:

If I'm in a bank, and the alarm goes off because a ninja triggered it, how am I alert to the threat of the ninja hiding in the shadowy ceiling above me?

Click to expand...

Alert enough to not be surprised because you are looking around for what set off the alarm. At least that's how 5e works.

Micah Sweet said:

Not necessarily. There are rules out there for this stuff, and prep you can do, if you want.

Click to expand...

Rules for what? How much resources some opponent has? I mean, sure if you run City State of the Invincible Overlord, pretty much every building is keyed in the whole (large) city. You still can't tell who will work for whom, exactly what their goals and resources are, etc. Plus you will have to play in something with this kind of level of prep.

Well, that or you have a VERY slow moving kind of plodding game where much of the time the players are simply 'fiddling around' or doing something of little consequence. It would be effectively impossible to sustain a game at any great pace where you had to make up all the financial and social details of the life of tons of NPCs and figure out how the entire world works in detail.

I mean, we decide to break into a warehouse in Fong Town. Who does it belong to? What's in there? Can they afford magical protection? Do they have influence with the town government to get the PCs in trouble? I believe you can sometimes construct this amount of detail in a very restricted sense, but that means you better have the PCs on a short leash so they don't go outside that!

I ran this kind of campaign, it definitely wasn't sustainable at the pace we moved at! In fact it devolved down into essentially narrativist play after a few months. Not that I'd really heard about those techniques (it was the '90s) but focusing on the plot as being the thing that was the game part of play got pretty interesting. Not that it was easy to do with 2e, but kind of possible.

Bill Zebub said:

Yes, this. I find GM'ing to be a weird conflict between being a fan of the PCs, and trying to kill them.

Click to expand...

That's a major reason why my recent designs are built around elaborate and fictionless resolution minigames where you can and should be playing to win.

Because playing to win against a resisting opponent is fun, who could've thought.