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

[Cam_Banks]

"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?

I think he is saying that in a case where there is a conflict within the game, having the outcome be decided by the GM rather than rules is bad. Of course, as GM, he could simply create an impossibly powerful NPC and that would accomplish the same thing.

"I attack Gandalf."

*long combat where players get hosed*

"You lose."

In some cases, I'd probably err on the side of "you are going to lose, are you sure you want to do this?" but if you are the kind of player and GM who require rules to settle it, the pre-generated player hosing step has to be carried out.

Cheers,
Cam

[Josh]

"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?

Correct.  That is not a conflict.  The conflict is player vs NPC wizard fighting.  Do you resolve that by fiat?

"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?

I think he is saying that in a case where there is a conflict within the game, having the outcome be decided by the GM rather than rules is bad. Of course, as GM, he could simply create an impossibly powerful NPC and that would accomplish the same thing.

"I attack Gandalf."

*long combat where players get hosed*

"You lose."

In some cases, I'd probably err on the side of "you are going to lose, are you sure you want to do this?" but if you are the kind of player and GM who require rules to settle it, the pre-generated player hosing step has to be carried out.

I do this thing where I do a better job of GMing than this.  Examples of bad GMing on both sides are not a good illustration of a point. 

[Josh]

Awesome games are good that way, even if they don't have explicit rules.

No.  Games are the sum of their parts.  They are not decreed awesome by some church like authority.

Is it theoretically possible?  Yes.  And this would be the place to prove it.  Until then we assume conditionally that it is not possible. 

[Nachofan99]

I think he is saying that in a case where there is a conflict within the game, having the outcome be decided by the GM rather than rules is bad.

You know Cam you always put forth reasonable, clear and intelligent post.  But when Josh says something, I can never be sure what he means, exactly.

I'll go with what you're saying and assume it's what Josh is saying regarding Fiat Resolution. 

My same question stands regarding spell selection, spell usage, spell targeting etc.

The list of what spells the NPC knows and has prepared for the day is entirely resolved by GM Fiat.
The target of every spell the NPC casts is entirely resolved by GM Fiat.
When a wizard casts spell "A" is entirely resolved by GM Fiat.

That's a lot of Fiat Resolution.  Those are all smaller, individual "conflicts" decided entirely by GM Fiat and I've never had such ruin my games.

When an NPC moves from Square A to Square B, isn't that entirely Fiat Resolution? [Given the GM follows the rules of movement.  I mean they decided arbitrarily what squares they take to get there, how far exactly to move, how they move -run/charge/jump etc. when they move and so on.]

Just as "Gandalf wins because I say so" so too does "Goblin #1 moves to Square B because I say so".

I *think* I am showing where Fiat Resolution is a *good thing*, and also where it can be a *bad thing.*

Correct.  That is not a conflict.  The conflict is player vs NPC wizard fighting.  Do you resolve that by fiat?

Aren't all of the individual movements, spell selections, spell targeting, maneuvers, etc all the small pieces of the players vs. the NPC wizard?


The conflict of players vs. NPC wizard *is resolved by* the wizard casting spells, targeting PCs, and so on, is it not?  A lot of that is completely based on Fiat [spell selection, targeting and so on, and NOT save DC, total number of spells per day etc.]?

If "Games are the sum of their parts" then are not conflicts the sum of the individual actions in them?

[Cam_Banks]

I do this thing where I do a better job of GMing than this.  Examples of bad GMing on both sides are not a good illustration of a point. 

Well, yeah. Me too. But then my players have never felt as if they're asking me pretty please for something even when I'm coming up with something on the spot rather than bitching about the lack of a specific rule for it in the sourcebook.

Here's the thing. Let's say, conditionally, that I am running a game all my players like and we're having a great time and so far, all is good. This game is awesome. I come across a situation where there is no explicit game mechanic in place for handling X, but I have the core rules and know them very well, so I adjudicate some means of handling it. "Well, there's no rule that covers this, but you've got a skill that might be applicable and here's a modifier and here's another one, so roll." Maybe the issue I am having with you is this "explicit rules mechanic" thing you keep coming back to?

Cheers,
Cam

[Nachofan99]

Quote from: Josh on Today at 09:13:44 PM
I do this thing where I do a better job of GMing than this.  Examples of bad GMing on both sides are not a good illustration of a point.

Well, yeah. Me too. But then my players have never felt as if they're asking me pretty please for something even when I'm coming up with something on the spot rather than bitching about the lack of a specific rule for it in the sourcebook.

You know in both quotes and elsewhere in the thread we seem to have all come back to a single point: Bad GMs are Bad.

Josh, you yourself say you do a better job of GMing - as compared to what?  Bad GMs.

Only Bad GMs seem to use this anoverboard amount+method of Fiat Resolution "You fail because I say so/You succeed because I say so". 

I still don't say that makes all forms of Fiat Resolution inherently bad, such as, determining how well you sit on the couch or finding a penny on the ground or even winning in an arm-wrestling match that is not intrinsic to the main story-line.

[Josh]

I think he is saying that in a case where there is a conflict within the game, having the outcome be decided by the GM rather than rules is bad.

You know Cam you always put forth reasonable, clear and intelligent post.  But when Josh says something, I can never be sure what he means, exactly.

I'll go with what you're saying and assume it's what Josh is saying regarding Fiat Resolution. 

My same question stands regarding spell selection, spell usage, spell targeting etc.

The list of what spells the NPC knows and has prepared for the day is entirely resolved by GM Fiat.
The target of every spell the NPC casts is entirely resolved by GM Fiat.
When a wizard casts spell "A" is entirely resolved by GM Fiat.

That's a lot of Fiat Resolution.  Those are all smaller, individual "conflicts" decided entirely by GM Fiat and I've never had such ruin my games.

When an NPC moves from Square A to Square B, isn't that entirely Fiat Resolution? [Given the GM follows the rules of movement.  I mean they decided arbitrarily what squares they take to get there, how far exactly to move, how they move -run/charge/jump etc. when they move and so on.]

Just as "Gandalf wins because I say so" so too does "Goblin #1 moves to Square B because I say so".

I *think* I am showing where Fiat Resolution is a *good thing*, and also where it can be a *bad thing.*

Correct.  That is not a conflict.  The conflict is player vs NPC wizard fighting.  Do you resolve that by fiat?

Aren't all of the individual movements, spell selections, spell targeting, maneuvers, etc all the small pieces of the players vs. the NPC wizard?


The conflict of players vs. NPC wizard *is resolved by* the wizard casting spells, targeting PCs, and so on, is it not?  A lot of that is completely based on Fiat [spell selection, targeting and so on, and NOT save DC, total number of spells per day etc.]?

If "Games are the sum of their parts" then are not conflicts the sum of the individual actions in them?

The question you are looking to ask is "what is fiat resolution"  which I explained.  The key I think you are now missing is "what is a conflict?"

A conflict occurs when one of the participants "character" comes to a situation in which the outcome is disputed.  (Now I am just going to talk about DnD because it is more complicated to discuss the general case.)  In DnD an example would be "do I hit x with my sword?"  And larger "do I win the fight?"  

Conflicts are resolved by some mechanisim.  Like a roll.  

All arbitrary DM decisions are fiat.  Not all examples of fiat are fiat resolution.  

Does that clear things up at all?  

I do this thing where I do a better job of GMing than this.  Examples of bad GMing on both sides are not a good illustration of a point. 

Well, yeah. Me too. But then my players have never felt as if they're asking me pretty please for something even when I'm coming up with something on the spot rather than bitching about the lack of a specific rule for it in the sourcebook.

Arguing at the ignorance of your players or posting straw men is not a strong position to hold.

My players don't complain either.  Well Zeke does but that's his schtick.  

Here's the thing. Let's say, conditionally, that I am running a game all my players like and we're having a great time and so far, all is good. This game is awesome. I come across a situation where there is no explicit game mechanic in place for handling X, but I have the core rules and know them very well, so I adjudicate some means of handling it. "Well, there's no rule that covers this, but you've got a skill that might be applicable and here's a modifier and here's another one, so roll." Maybe the issue I am having with you is this "explicit rules mechanic" thing you keep coming back to?

Just say things.  Let me edit this:

"I am running a game, I come across a situation where there is no explicit game mechanic in place for handling X. I adjudicate some means of handling it, by modifying existing rules. "

OK.  So what?  Was this a corner case?  A design flaw?  Player/GM screw up?  One of the jobs of the GM is to adjudicate problems.  

[Cam_Banks]

I think at the end of the day, what I'm butting heads with you on in this instance is the point you're trying to make regarding fiat resolution.

For a while there, I was totally in agreement with you. Resolving a conflict using GM fiat ("you lose!") sucks. It's a sign of a bad GM. I get that, and so I figured that's where it was going to end.

But then you bring up explicit rules mechanics, and games not handling styles, and this making them not awesome, and it muddies the waters. Much of this probably belongs on one of your other food for thought threads, so we should shift it there.

However, before that happens, can I just say categorically that if you're cool with the idea of a GM adjudicating things, this being central to his role in the group (unless the game has no GM, or it's run by a computer) can we put to rest the "that is GM fiat, ergo this game is bad" nonsense unless we have a clear example of that? Because if my game doesn't have explicit rule X, but I can use basic rules to cover that, then even if it's a mod or a house rule or a spot decision or whatever, I don't want to lump that in with the "I R bad GM" category. Or even the "this game is bad" category. It could be a fantastic game, made even better by the fact that it affords me the capacity to extend my campaign's themes beyond what it primarily supports and into other fun genres or styles for short lengths of time as needed. That sounds like an awesome game to me. GMs that master their rules and can make such decisions on the fly shouldn't be told they're duping their players or engaged in bad wrong fun.

Cheers,
Cam

[Josh]

I still don't say that makes all forms of Fiat Resolution inherently bad, such as, determining how well you sit on the couch or finding a penny on the ground or even winning in an arm-wrestling match that is not intrinsic to the main story-line.

OK.  Look at the first post.

"Bad" is just a word.

here is what I say:

"When you use Fiat Resolution ultimately the player is simply begging to win and the GM lets them win or fail at a whim."
You could counter this by saying how it is not true, or how it is a good idea.

Then I say:
- It deprotagonizes the players
- It subjects them to the GM's interpretation
- It is not a game
You could counter these points or say why they are good.

Next:
"Also remember that ultimately the start of this process was that of a conflict.  Typically the player vs something else (GM/World/Other player).  So if they lose, it was something they wanted to win.  And they had no chance to do so, the GM arbitrarily sided against them.  That is sure to ruffle feathers and place the target on the GM's head."

"And if they win it is worth noting that that is essentially NOT a conflict in the first place if the other side was someone other than a player.  That means the results of fiat will typically be a loss. "

You could speak to these points as well.

I'll also tell you that there is at least one argument against this point that I wanted to see if anyone would guess (yes chances are there are more).

[Josh]

Can we put to rest the "that is GM fiat, ergo this game is bad" nonsense unless we have a clear example of that?

Given that I constantly, explicitly say that and provide numerous examples: I'm glad you are finally on board.

The point of the thread is that "Fiat Resolution," a specific type of fiat is bad.   

[Cam_Banks]

Given that I constantly, explicitly say that and provide numerous examples: I'm glad you are finally on board.

There's probably just something about your delivery. I might have got it sooner had this not been conducted via the internets.

Cheers,
Cam

[Josh]

Given that I constantly, explicitly say that and provide numerous examples: I'm glad you are finally on board.

There's probably just something about your delivery. I might have got it sooner had this not been conducted via the internets.

Right, it must be the messenger.  Everyone else must be the problem.

[Cam_Banks]

Right, it must be the messenger.  Everyone else must be the problem.

Exactly!

Or else it's my kid being up so late and wearing me out.

Moving on, anyway...

Cheers,
Cam

[woodenbandman]

I think we're not addressing the issue here. We're doing the whole "it's just your opinion" failacy. Yeah, it's an opinion, just like it's fiat, in some sense of the word, but not in a useful sense of the word.

Fiat resolution needs to be defined. Let's use this definition:

"A situation where the DM covers the ass of the system by making rules where there are none, or causing results to happen without resorting to the use of rules."

In the given situation where GM says "you lose because I'm DM and you lose," that's an example of fiat resolution gone horribly wrong. But there are also situations where fiat is a necessary course of action, such as what happens when the player appeals to the good graces of the king but the rules for diplomacy such shit. What does the king do? Does he keep his word when he promises to spare the knight's life, even though there's no rule saying that promises are cool and we should keep them?

So maybe, sometimes, there isn't a mechanic for some situation that needs resolving. It's only really a bad thing when it comes down to "the players win or lose as a result of this decision." Systems that allow stuff like this to happen are really bad SYSTEMS, not necessarily a hallmark of a bad GM. There are undoubtedly systems where this kind of thing happens. Bad GMs, however, ignore the rules that are in place and instead create live/die situations where there should be none.

[Cam_Banks]

In the given situation where GM says "you lose because I'm DM and you lose," that's an example of fiat resolution gone horribly wrong. But there are also situations where fiat is a necessary course of action, such as what happens when the player appeals to the good graces of the king but the rules for diplomacy such shit. What does the king do? Does he keep his word when he promises to spare the knight's life, even though there's no rule saying that promises are cool and we should keep them?

This could be a cogent argument for the creation of and/or inclusion of better rules to cover these situations, but not necessarily a reason to abandon the game in toto. I'd say also that in a sense, there is a system in play if it's player vs. NPC that goes beyond "GM says so" in that game statistics, circumstances, a contract of trust, role playing, and the like are called upon to engage in a solution. I think ideally, there's a way for this to happen without the players feeling screwed or the GM feeling as if he's left to make a yes or no decision without recourse. But diceless games fall to this quite often, and they still manage to engage this issue well enough.

If I have game X which does everything really well except for intrigue, and game Y which does all the exact same things AND handles intrigue, then if intrigue is a desired element the players should be playing game Y. It occurs to me, however, that what this amounts to is a rules mod, since game Y pretty much == game X.

Cheers,
Cam

[Josh]

I think we're not addressing the issue here. We're doing the whole "it's just your opinion" failacy. Yeah, it's an opinion, just like it's fiat, in some sense of the word, but not in a useful sense of the word.

Fiat resolution needs to be defined. Let's use this definition:

Fiat Resolution has a definition.  And it is kinda the point of this entire thread.  If we changed it we would not be talking about the point of the thread, do you see?

In the given situation where GM says "you lose because I'm DM and you lose," that's an example of fiat resolution gone horribly wrong. But there are also situations where fiat is a necessary course of action, such as what happens when the player appeals to the good graces of the king but the rules for diplomacy such shit. What does the king do? Does he keep his word when he promises to spare the knight's life, even though there's no rule saying that promises are cool and we should keep them?

So A) this is not fiat resolution and B) the bigger issue is that you are playing the wrong game (or the game wrong).

So maybe, sometimes, there isn't a mechanic for some situation that needs resolving.

Give an example, either in theory or practice, where fiat resolution is good.

It's only really a bad thing when it comes down to "the players win or lose as a result of this decision."

In every case the players win or lose because of a resolution.  That's what resolutions do. 

[Josh]

 But diceless games fall to this quite often, and they still manage to engage this issue well enough.

Diceless does not means senseless.  They just use other resolution mechanics.

[veekie]

In the given situation where GM says "you lose because I'm DM and you lose," that's an example of fiat resolution gone horribly wrong. But there are also situations where fiat is a necessary course of action, such as what happens when the player appeals to the good graces of the king but the rules for diplomacy such shit. What does the king do? Does he keep his word when he promises to spare the knight's life, even though there's no rule saying that promises are cool and we should keep them?

To be precise here, fiat is apparently being defined as a bad thing when and only when it's being used to settle a conflict. By itself, it's a necessary part of the game, but when you use it to settle conflict of any sort(whether PC vs PC(nuff said), PC vs NPC(the classic Elminster shows up and blows it all to hell scenario), PC vs environment(Rocks fall, "No you can't have heard of this before")).

The first 2 are generally partially(the direct aspect usually is, the social, etc aspects generally handled poorly by AA games) covered under most rules(in fact, if the game doesn't it's probably got some serious flaws), but the last one, most games I know of eventually fall flat somewhere there. "Can the players in a fantasy game conjure and assemble a nuclear device based on players IRL knowledge?" is one of those things that most rules fail to cover. It's not like the designers expected PCs to want to do that sort of thing on a regular basis.

[Josh]

By itself, it's a necessary part of the game, but when you use it to settle conflict of any sort(whether PC vs PC(nuff said), PC vs NPC(the classic Elminster shows up and blows it all to hell scenario), PC vs environment(Rocks fall, "No you can't have heard of this before")).

The first 2 are generally partially(the direct aspect usually is, the social, etc aspects generally handled poorly by AA games) covered under most rules(in fact, if the game doesn't it's probably got some serious flaws), but the last one, most games I know of eventually fall flat somewhere there. "Can the players in a fantasy game conjure and assemble a nuclear device based on players IRL knowledge?" is one of those things that most rules fail to cover. It's not like the designers expected PCs to want to do that sort of thing on a regular basis.

Few games handle encounters with the environment well, except in the sense of dungeons and traps(and they are often weak).  The games that do handle it well are generally story games, and they tend to handle all problems by abstracting them to events (that means player vs environment is identical to player vs NPC). 

Another good point to consider. 

[Nachofan99]

Honestly Josh I'm still grasping at the nuanced difference between "Fiat" and "Fiat Resolution" with specific regards to my example of D&D 3.5 NPC Wizard Spell selection in all its facets.

I don't know about you, but I prefer to discuss real "in-game" sort of examples; it just resonates much stronger than theoretical examples.

Here you say:

The question you are looking to ask is "what is fiat resolution"  which I explained.  The key I think you are now missing is "what is a conflict?"

A conflict occurs when one of the participants "character" comes to a situation in which the outcome is disputed.  (Now I am just going to talk about DnD because it is more complicated to discuss the general case.)  In DnD an example would be "do I hit x with my sword?"  And larger "do I win the fight?" 

Conflicts are resolved by some mechanisim.  Like a roll. 

All arbitrary DM decisions are fiat.  Not all examples of fiat are fiat resolution. 

Does that clear things up at all? 

Let me first say that Josh, this is literally the first time that I've ever felt like you've ever addressed something someone has said in a really clear and direct way, so I really do not want to squander what I feel like is a genuine chance at a conversation on the topic.  So let me thank you for that; it really changes my overall opinion of you in a very positive way.

I am perfectly fine with accepting as a given that I am not following you on your definition of "Fiat Resolution" versus simply "Fiat".  I'd like to try and get on the same page as you.  I do not think I agree there is much, if any, really significant difference between "Fiat" and "Fiat Resolution." (Especially when answering the question "Pretty Please, GM May I?")

I want to once again continue using the example I presented because I think it is what is throwing me off the most.

You say a conflict can be many things but you give specific examples, and I love discussing specific examples:

"Do I hit X with my sword?"
"Do I win the fight?"

These are perfectly fine.  Using your definition, these situations are "Conflicts".  I follow that, agree to it, I'm on the same page here.

Let's change them slightly and we'll see where I start to get lost.

"Do I hit X with my spell?"
"Do I win the fight?"

Okay, clearly I have not bent your words in some kind of crazy way that only a lawyer could re-interpret.  Allow me to take this another step.

"Did NPC Wizard hit X with his spell?"
"Did NPC Wizard win the fight?"

Once again I have not intrinsically changed the nature of the conflict - this seems to be "conflict" as you defined.  Going back further.

"Did NPC Wizard know spell Y?"
"Did NPC Wizard prepare spell Y today?"
"Did NPC Wizard choose to cast spell Y in round Z?"
"Did NPC Wizard target X with spell Y?"
"Did NPC Wizard hit X with spell Y?"
"Did NPC Wizard win the fight?"

I'm talking about the earlier sections.  I think I am beginning to see what you are saying - that it is simply "Fiat" as to which spells the Wizard knew prior to said fight, and also "Fiat" as to which spells the Wizard prepared today - but not "Fiat Resolution".  I'm still somewhat failing to understand a significant difference between "This happens because I say so" vs. "This other thing happens because I say so, but that's alright because it's Fiat and not Fiat Resolution." <-----Right there is the TLDR version.

So you are saying since "The outcome is not disputed" regarding what spells NPC Wizard knows, NPC Wizard Prepared today, and NPC Wizard chose to cast in rounds 1,2,3 etc of combat that it matters not at all when it comes down to "Roll a saving throw" or "NPC Wizard has to make a touch attack" - because even though the very actions they are about to take have been so incredibly surrounded with Fiat (but not Fiat Resolution) that doesn't matter because "The disputed action" is what happens when spell X is cast?

Uh, another example I guess using the same basic framework.

DM tells me  "you are hit for 8 damage" by an enemy in combat.   I ask "Why?"  His answer is *because I say so*.  Without putting words into your mouth, I believe you would call that "Fiat Resolution." 

In the same example if the DM said "you are hit for 8 damage" and I asked "Why?"  His answer is *because I made an attack roll, hit your AC then made a damage roll and did 8 damage."  I believe you would call that Non-Fiat Conflict Resolution.  Moving to another example.

DM tells me "make a Reflex saving throw DC X" from an enemy spell.  I ask "Why?"  He says *because you have been targeted by a spell*.  I ask "Why was I targeted by this spell?"  DM answers *Because I say so*.  Fiat brought about this Non-Fiat Conflict Resolution - Is that what I've been missing?

Using D&D 3.5 for another example, in the Monster Manual there are numerous write-ups that describe the general tactics of various monsters etc.  I definitely see how a DM could use the rules to strongly support his spell-selection, PC targeting and so on based on rules presented in the game. 

But in other situations the DM is arbitrarily making choices *that are not based on rules*.

I guess after all that I can see there is *somewhat of a difference* here, but really, I do not see how this is the *opposite* of "Pretty Please DM may I win?"  [Re-phrase to "Pretty Please DM Don't Hurt Me!]

If the NPC Wizard constantly targets one particular PC, or does NOT target one particular PC
If the NPC Wizard constantly knows/prepares spells that are *vastly* more effective/ineffective on one particular PC
If the NPC Wizard constantly pre-buffs perfect spells that *vastly* hinder one particular PC
etc. etc. etc.

If NPC Wizard is always kicking the shit out of PC #1 *using the rules*, tell me how *the end result* is not the same thing you're talking about regarding the evils of Fiat Resolution.  It really appears to be Bad DM is Bad in both cases.

To quote you again, since I like examples and you presented good ones I agree whole-heartedly with:

- It deprotagonizes the players
- It subjects them to the GM's interpretation
- It is not a game

Constantly hosing someone "by the rules" is just as deprotagonizing, makes the game no longer a game, and definitely subjects the player to GM interpretation regarding targeting/spell selection etc.

This is what I'm struggling with.  Sorry I went on for so long.

Remember your "larger" Conflict Resolution example of "Do I win the fight?"  When you fight NPC Wizard the questions of what spells they have, who they target them with and when are vastly important to answering "Do I win the fight" and all of these questions are answered by Fiat.

I guess they are not answered by *Fiat Resolution*, but as I hopefully show above, in real game play is there a significant difference?