Food for Thought, Basic: Pretty Please, GM May I?

[Josh]

Pretty Please, GM May I?

This is a topic that has come up time and time again.  Resolution by GM fiat.  Fiat is “an arbitrary decision” and resolution is “a mechanism to resolve conflict” and conflict is when “the outcome of an event is contested”

Fiat Resolution means that the GM just decides the outcome of a conflict. This is sometimes known as Player vs GM Dramatic resolution.

The position I hold is that this is “Bad” of course that is more of convergence of ideas.  It also may not hold that it is provably bad.  It is however definitively not-good. 


I present a series of arguments:

-When you use Fiat Resolution the player is simply begging to win and the GM lets them win or fail at a whim.
 
-Fiat Resolution, when repeated, is also known as Railroading.  Or rather a specific type of railroading.

-Players are deprotagonized by Fiat Resolution.  They are powerless over their characters destiny.

-The GM interprets the situation using his own ideas and hangups.  This means the outcome completely varies with different GM's and varies based on the mood of the GM.

-It is also impossible for the player to accurately predict the chances for success or failure. 

-It is not a game when you resort to fiat.  You can't get lucky.  You can't think tactically.  You can't use good play to help you succeed. 

-Conflict means that the player wants something.  If they lose it was because the GM decided they could not have what they want.

-If you “win” a fiat resolution conflict it is actually the same as not having a conflict at all.  That means Fiat Resolution typically means “you fail.” 


Player vs Player dramatic resolution ain't so great either

You see again you start with a conflict.  Both sides want something.  Now if you are going to get what you want you need to impose your will on the other person and make them fail.  Or if you compromise, you don't get what you want.  You have to give something up.  (again this is generally, if you are skilled at problem solving and thinking win-win this may not be an issue)

So in most cases one or both people fail.  And generally it is not like you had a chance.  The stronger or more charismatic player will win, or the game will just lock up. 

Counter Arguments

Fiat Resolution is easy.

Response – Yes it is.  That hardly makes it quality.  For all the reasons above you should not take the easy road.  Beyond that, you are here to play a game.  Not playing a game and just making shit up is not what we are here to do.  Heck, just write up what happens and send it to me if thats what you want.  Thats much easier for both of us.

My players don't care, they are having fun

Response 1 – Are they? In the vast majority of games like this all the players having fun is a delusion of the person making the claim.  And please, feel free to not believe me.  Prove it to yourself.  Think about the game.  Are they really seeming to have fun?  Do they act like it?  Next talk to them one on one and see if they are genuinely having fun.  If they are, great, you are very lucky. 

Response 2 - They could have more fun.  The reason why your players are having fun with this is because the situation has enough of the payouts they like to entertain them.  Additionally they are not turned off by anything you are doing.  Here's the thing.  They may have payouts you cannot address under these circumstances (like they may enjoy playing a game.)  Also, you really limit yourself in who you can play with.  New players are going to be even less likely to get along with you (due to shared circumstance your older friend are going to tend to think more like you) even if they don't outright hate fiat.

Response 3 – Your players may learn better.  All of the best GM's and Players (And writers and podcasters) despise fiat resolution.  Unless you keep your players in a box they may learn better.  Do you really want your players to quit or revolt?

Response 4 – This cannot be used as advice anyway.  It is dependent on the players having specific payouts and not having specific turn offs. 

Response 5 – It is not a positive argument.  It says “it isn't that bad.”  Not they are having more fun.  At best the fun is simply equal.  Nothing makes fiat resolution more fun.

The theoretical counter argument

An actual counter to this would be to suggest a mechanism for greater fun supported by an example of it in action.

Conclusion – The ideal amount of Fiat Resolution to use is zero.  The inclusion of FR makes a game bad.  Under no circumstances should FR be advised.  Indicating that something requires FR to operate is grounds for its logical annulment.

It is worth noting that games themselves do not typically advise FR.  It is more a tool of misguided game advocates.


Comments?

[Dionysus]

A definite "yes this is bad".

There is some leeway on this though. There are some games that have different resolution mechanics, say a single roll compared to a two way conflict. The gm may decide that in a "non dramatically important" scene, the players can do someting with a single roll, or even just "you succeed at any taks less difficult than your skill" - or maybe the other way and turn a simple roll into a all out conflict with damage tracks etc.

That sort of "gm fiat" is ok, as there is ALWAYS a mechanic involved in the resolution. The GM should never say "you succeed at X" unless there is something that can back that up in the rules.

If there are no rules to cover that, then that is what house rules are for - invent a reasonable resolution mechanic, and use that for any similar situations (if character A can do it, then character B should at least get a try..)

[woodenbandman]

I dislike GM fiat very very much. It's like houserules that nobody agrees on and they just happen. I almost always avoid GM fiat, but it's unfortunately necessary in 1 in 10 or so sessions for some usually small thing.

However, there are many better ways completely within the rules to deprotagonize the players. GM fiat is generally a tool of GMs inexperienced with the system that aren't really that good at GMing, rather than the tool of a true dick who's just out to trip sack with the power that's gone to his tiny, tiny head.

[Cam_Banks]

Any game that requires a GM will, at some point, come down to the GM making a ruling on an outcome or the possibility of the outcome being in the player's favor. The GM may decide which rule to use, if there are rules that are close but not a perfect fit. There could be a basic resolution mechanic in place that applies to everything, and the GM decides how to implement it. There may not be a universal or basic mechanic to use, in which case the GM might make an arbitrary ruling based on factors present in the conflict.

There are some problems with the "pretty please GM" argument. The first is that as a GM is, by definition, the facilitator or arbitrator of the game, the one who introduces conflicts and/or manages challenges the players must interact with or overcome. Thus, on some level, the GM is making arbitrary decisions informed by how he or she understands the game to work. Choosing a difficulty for a standard dice-based or card-based resolution could be a "pretty please" instance. Applying modifiers could be a "pretty please" instance. Allowing the players to attempt a roll, use a power, activate some game element, or anything else could be a "pretty please" instance.

Unless there is a random factor or objective rule that keeps the GM out of the equation, any game with a GM requires the GM to make a ruling or decision on what to do. Quite often, the GM is asked in the game to narrate or determine the outcome based on the random or objective rule. Most RPGs have the GM look at the result of the conflict resolution mechanic and arbitrate it.

Unless you are playing a truly freeform game with no rules at all, you won't have an instance where there are simply no rules at all in place (or statistics, or measures of competence) for the GM to make an informed ruling. Also, unless the game is managed by a computer or is a board game/tactical game with preset difficulty and/or challenge mechanics that require no GM involvement, you won't be able to avoid the GM needing to make some sort of ruling or arbitrary decision, or otherwise eliminate a "pretty please GM" instance.

Your choices are: play games without a GM, play structured board games or wargames, or play RPGs where the GM must make informed decisions (often arbitrary). Your best choice for the third option is not to have a dick GM.

Cheers,
Cam

[woodenbandman]

^Excellent point, Cam, and I think that we can all agree on that. However, I think we want to discuss GM fiat on a much larger scale than you're talking about (the circumstance bonuses and stuff). Those things are fine, and probably an integral part of good GMing, but it's when you start handwaving the badguy's stats when it gets into douchebaggery.

[Josh]

Again Cam, "Fiat Resolution" not more than that. 

And No game I am aware of uses "Fiat Resolution" explicitly.  It is however a staple of Bad GM's the world round.

 

[Cam_Banks]

Okay. So this is really about bad GMs, not bad rules or bad games?

Cheers,
Cam

[Josh]

Okay. So this is really about bad GMs, not bad rules or bad games?

It is about a "Bad" Concept "Fiat Resolution."

Some bad GM's use it
It is a bad rule to use
And games that use it are bad

While no games (I am aware of) use it it means that they are limited in what they can do.  This negates the idea that, for example, games that are Action Adventure can be other styles.  Because they cannot be without mechanics and since they do not have explicit resolution mechanics that leaves Fiat resolution.  QED.

[Cam_Banks]

Okay. So this is really about bad GMs, not bad rules or bad games?

It is about a "Bad" Concept "Fiat Resolution."

Some bad GM's use it
It is a bad rule to use
And games that use it are bad

While no games (I am aware of) use it it means that they are limited in what they can do.  This negates the idea that, for example, games that are Action Adventure can be other styles.  Because they cannot be without mechanics and since they do not have explicit resolution mechanics that leaves Fiat resolution.  QED.

If a game has a basic resolution mechanic (like "roll dice and beat target number") and this mechanic allows for the GM to use it, then we're obviously free of this problem.

If a game has rules that cannot be used by a GM to take care of the needs of the game, then I don't think people would be using those rules. It would be like trying to play Monopoly with a box of dominoes.

I look forward to your establishment of proof that games that have been created to support style X cannot be used to support other styles. I think for the most part this is a non-issue.

Cheers,
Cam

[Josh]

I look forward to your establishment of proof that games that have been created to support style X cannot be used to support other styles. I think for the most part this is a non-issue.

I just did.  What part of QED is unclear? 

I can easily be proven wrong now that the entirety of my assertion is laid out.  All you have to do is prove that "Fiat Resolution" is good.  Good luck with that. 

[Cam_Banks]

I just did.  What part of QED is unclear? 

I can easily be proven wrong now that the entirety of my assertion is laid out.  All you have to do is prove that "Fiat Resolution" is good.  Good luck with that.

You haven't proved that. You have proved that, in the absence of any rules that can be used to take care of a situation, the GM is often forced to make an arbitrary decision. If the decision is uninformed by any rules or statistics, it is "fiat resolution" and thus bad.

You haven't proved that a game designed to support style X can't be used to also support style Y. This is especially true if the GM treats the game like a toolbox or set of guidelines for the use of existing mechanics. Page 42 of 4E D&D is an example. Call of Cthulhu is an example of a rules set designed originally for fantasy adventure (RuneQuest) that has been successfully retasked for horror and investigation gaming. The difference in rules is minimal.

Cheers,
Cam

[woodenbandman]

Okay. So this is really about bad GMs, not bad rules or bad games?

It is about a "Bad" Concept "Fiat Resolution."

Some bad GM's use it
It is a bad rule to use
And games that use it are bad

While no games (I am aware of) use it it means that they are limited in what they can do.  This negates the idea that, for example, games that are Action Adventure can be other styles.  Because they cannot be without mechanics and since they do not have explicit resolution mechanics that leaves Fiat resolution.  QED.

If a game has a basic resolution mechanic (like "roll dice and beat target number") and this mechanic allows for the GM to use it, then we're obviously free of this problem.

If a game has rules that cannot be used by a GM to take care of the needs of the game, then I don't think people would be using those rules. It would be like trying to play Monopoly with a box of dominoes.

I look forward to your establishment of proof that games that have been created to support style X cannot be used to support other styles. I think for the most part this is a non-issue.

Cheers,
Cam

Hold up a second: Josh, are you suggesting that a system that doesn't have rules for, say, finding clues on the ground, can't be used for a type of game where it's necessary to find clues on the ground? Duh! Of course then in that case it'd be fiat to say "okay, you find this clue." But it seems like you're making a blanket statement that systems that support one genre of play cannot also support another genre. I think that this is true to a certain extent, and I know that every game doesn't have Duel of Wits, meaning that not all game systems can actually support an argument between two people(which doesn't mean that they won't occur, of course). So for a DM to say "okay, you convince the shopkeeper that you're really all right, so you buy this weapon," when they've not actually rolled any dice for the "encounter," are you saying that this is fiat resolution, and thus bad? Granted, that's a trivial thing, but it'd be the same principal with another thing.

I think that the problem with this whole thing is that regardless of the existence or non-existence of a mechanic to resolve a problem, the fact is that there is no problem you can resolve if the DM won't let you. So, yeah, a duel of wits is awesome, but if the DM wants combat, you're not going to win the duel of wits vs. stopping combat. You'll be fighting an uphill battle and the opponent will be better than you or too angry to give a shit and he'll hack your ass to pieces before you can say QED. That leaves us with two possibilities: a system where the GM decides that you will not win an argument, or a system where a GM decides that you will not win an argument. So what this means is that, regardless of whether there's mechanics to solve a problem in one way, if the GM wants you to be able to solve a problem in that way, you'll be able to do it. And if not, you don't.

So I agree with you on principal that a system without rules for, say, social mechanics, should probably not be used as a system for a lot of intrigue and roleplaying. But I disagree that an action adventure system cannot be used to convey horror. It's a simple matter of adjusting the power curve in that case, such that the players aren't the baddest badasses in badville anymore. And I also disagree that in the case of arguments in a game where there's no actual resolution mechanic for argument, it's a bad thing to determine who wins and who loses.

[Josh]

I just did.  What part of QED is unclear? 

I can easily be proven wrong now that the entirety of my assertion is laid out.  All you have to do is prove that "Fiat Resolution" is good.  Good luck with that.

You haven't proved that. You have proved that, in the absence of any rules that can be used to take care of a situation, the GM is often forced to make an arbitrary decision. If the decision is uninformed by any rules or statistics, it is "fiat resolution" and thus bad.

You haven't proved that a game designed to support style X can't be used to also support style Y. This is especially true if the GM treats the game like a toolbox or set of guidelines for the use of existing mechanics. Page 42 of 4E D&D is an example. Call of Cthulhu is an example of a rules set designed originally for fantasy adventure (RuneQuest) that has been successfully retasked for horror and investigation gaming. The difference in rules is minimal.

Cheers,
Cam

I apologize.  I forgot to point out that you should play games that are awesome.  I mention it elsewhere. 

So feel free to explain there why you would play a bad game in the general case. 

(And yes I am aware that if no game exists it would be your best option to play something bad in the theoretical example.)

[Josh]

Okay. So this is really about bad GMs, not bad rules or bad games?

It is about a "Bad" Concept "Fiat Resolution."

Some bad GM's use it
It is a bad rule to use
And games that use it are bad

While no games (I am aware of) use it it means that they are limited in what they can do.  This negates the idea that, for example, games that are Action Adventure can be other styles.  Because they cannot be without mechanics and since they do not have explicit resolution mechanics that leaves Fiat resolution.  QED.

If a game has a basic resolution mechanic (like "roll dice and beat target number") and this mechanic allows for the GM to use it, then we're obviously free of this problem.

If a game has rules that cannot be used by a GM to take care of the needs of the game, then I don't think people would be using those rules. It would be like trying to play Monopoly with a box of dominoes.

I look forward to your establishment of proof that games that have been created to support style X cannot be used to support other styles. I think for the most part this is a non-issue.

Cheers,
Cam

Hold up a second: Josh, are you suggesting that a system that doesn't have rules for, say, finding clues on the ground, can't be used for a type of game where it's necessary to find clues on the ground? Duh! Of course then in that case it'd be fiat to say "okay, you find this clue." But it seems like you're making a blanket statement that systems that support one genre of play cannot also support another genre. I think that this is true to a certain extent, and I know that every game doesn't have Duel of Wits, meaning that not all game systems can actually support an argument between two people(which doesn't mean that they won't occur, of course). So for a DM to say "okay, you convince the shopkeeper that you're really all right, so you buy this weapon," when they've not actually rolled any dice for the "encounter," are you saying that this is fiat resolution, and thus bad? Granted, that's a trivial thing, but it'd be the same principal with another thing.

I think that the problem with this whole thing is that regardless of the existence or non-existence of a mechanic to resolve a problem, the fact is that there is no problem you can resolve if the DM won't let you. So, yeah, a duel of wits is awesome, but if the DM wants combat, you're not going to win the duel of wits vs. stopping combat. You'll be fighting an uphill battle and the opponent will be better than you or too angry to give a shit and he'll hack your ass to pieces before you can say QED. That leaves us with two possibilities: a system where the GM decides that you will not win an argument, or a system where a GM decides that you will not win an argument. So what this means is that, regardless of whether there's mechanics to solve a problem in one way, if the GM wants you to be able to solve a problem in that way, you'll be able to do it. And if not, you don't.

So I agree with you on principal that a system without rules for, say, social mechanics, should probably not be used as a system for a lot of intrigue and roleplaying. But I disagree that an action adventure system cannot be used to convey horror. It's a simple matter of adjusting the power curve in that case, such that the players aren't the baddest badasses in badville anymore. And I also disagree that in the case of arguments in a game where there's no actual resolution mechanic for argument, it's a bad thing to determine who wins and who loses.

First off, I love you.

I try to keep arguments as simple as possible and it is worth noting you are the only person so far to notice this concept of encompassment. 

Yes if the set of rules in a system includes all the rules needed for another system then you can genre shift.  Horror is the best example.  Though generally you need to mod a game to go from AA to horror and that means a different game (generally).  Drama to Horror is very simple, for example.  AA to drama is impossible without a significant inclusion of rules. 

So yes you are correct.

[emissary666]

Most "roll target number of successes" systems are the most versatile. The GM cannot not find a rule. As much as Josh is going to hate this, WoD is a great example of a game that can avoid fiats

[Josh]

Most "roll target number of successes" systems are the most versatile. The GM cannot not find a rule. As much as Josh is going to hate this, WoD is a great example of a game that can avoid fiats

Actually the quality you are looking for is "Skill based" and for skills they are versatile. 

WoD, DnD3.5, DnD4e, SW, BW, all do skills.   

They all still suffer when you go beyond the system.

[Nachofan99]

I can easily be proven wrong now that the entirety of my assertion is laid out.  All you have to do is prove that "Fiat Resolution" is good.  Good luck with that.

Isn't combat in almost every gaming system on the NPC end "handled" by Fiat Resolution?  I'll just go to D&D 3.5 for an exact example...

Josh, can you cite for me exactly the D&D 3.5 game mechanic a GM uses to determine *exactly* what spells an NPC wizard has prepped for the day?  In combat, *exactly* what spells this NPC wizard casts and *exactly* when? *Exactly* who they target with said spells? What spells they pre-buff with during the day, and when?

Fiat resolution can be good when it saves a ***HUGE*** amount of time.  The above is an easy example of good Fiat Resolution.

OBVIOUSLY bad GMs are bad and Fiat Resolution can very easily be abused by bad GMs for other purposes that detract from the game and the fun in that game. Also, see Bad GMs.

The GM in my example is still bound to the rules on how many, what level, the spell DC etc. of the spells their NPC has, feat limitations and yes, they are limited to a spell known list that is not "unlimited" unless they could purchase all wizard spells with their wealth and do so in lieu of magic items etc. as per the rules.

But really Josh, what spells an NPC wizard chooses for the day and/or casts in a combat is pretty much 99% resolved by Fiat *and it's a good thing* because it saves a tremendous amount of time that could be used for something else, you know, like actually playing the game?

Are you going to come back and give me a counter-example of an NPC wizard that only has spells that specifically hose the party? Sounds like a case of Bad GM, much more than Fiat Resolution.  Fiat Resolution does not *force* the GM to make a specific NPC with specific spells that hose their players to the extreme - are you claiming that since Fiat Resolution does not *prevent* the GM from making NPCs in an exact way that does *not* hose the party, therefore, it fails as a Resolution System for simple mechanics that don't deserve the time for creating a rule?

Does how well you "sit on the couch" need a resolution system?

[Josh]

I can easily be proven wrong now that the entirety of my assertion is laid out.  All you have to do is prove that "Fiat Resolution" is good.  Good luck with that.

Isn't combat in almost every gaming system on the NPC end "handled" by Fiat Resolution?  I'll just go to D&D 3.5 for an exact example...

It is handled by "Fiat" (or rather there actually are guidelines but it is unimportant).  It is in fact explicitly handled by fiat in something we refer to as "framing."

"Fiat Resolution" is when the GM resolves a conflict at his whim.

Like you go against Gandalf and the GM tells you "Gandalf wins you lose, no roll."

[Nachofan99]

"Fiat Resolution" is when the GM resolves a conflict at his whim.

The conflict is I have wizard spells to prepare for the day.  The resolution is what spells fill those slots.  The solution is the GM decides arbitrarily, is it not?  Are you saying this is not Fiat Resolution?

[Cam_Banks]

I apologize.  I forgot to point out that you should play games that are awesome.  I mention it elsewhere. 

So feel free to explain there why you would play a bad game in the general case.

We haven't defined awesome yet. So my situation still stands. If you're playing an awesome game and you find that you want to genre shift (let's say it's Halloween and you're doing the annual horror episode of your otherwise traditional fantasy adventure game) then even if there are no explicit horror rules in the game, you can feel confident that if a basic underlying mechanic exists to draw upon, you can run such a game. You can also run a more intrigue-based session, or one in which the characters are faced with difficult moral choices, etc etc.

Yes, the awesome game might require some modifications or house rules or spot-decisions to make it work, but then it's an awesome game. Awesome games are good that way, even if they don't have explicit rules.

Cheers,
Cam