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

[veekie]

Note that theres a difference in creating a conflict(the spell preparation/casting, the encounter itself) and resolving one(does the spell hit?) are distinct matters, even if you can indeed create a conflict with only one possible resolution under the rules(20th level wizard vs party of level 1s, no contest, no sir).

However, the former cannot really be modified by the majority of game rules, unless the plot and details of the game are generated by the rules itself.

[Nachofan99]

I definitely think I see most of what you are saying Veekie, but I believe I avoided making that kind of error in understanding.

During the actual combat [and not merely the Framing of said Conflict], NPC Wizard arbitrarily casts spells on an arbitrary round[During Conflict] at an arbitrary number of targets[During Conflict] that he arbitrarily prepared that day[Framing] that he also arbitrarily has on his list of known spells[Framing] that he arbitrarily may have applied meta-magic to [Framing].

Yes, the PC's still get a Reflex Save etc.  Yes, variable spell damage gets rolled. Sure thing.

Yes there is a clear distinction between Creating a Conflict vs. Resolving One.

NPC Wizard has an arbitrarily high amount of arbitrary choices that exist outside of the written rules *during* the actual Conflict itself, namely targeting/timing.  There are rules for determining the tactics of various NPCs, located in the Monster Manual in addition to others.  The tactics of many NPCs, however, are entirely subject to DM Fiat *during* a Conflict.  I'm trying to address the fact that while there are mechanics for such things [I.E. the Round by Round tactics the Monster Manual gives for several NPC's] they are largely unnecessary because the DM deciding what an NPC does, while largely Fiat based, is typically not a bad thing - unless you have a Bad DM.

Yes I know, I'm back to "confusing" "Fiat" versus "Fiat Resolution" - but I do not see the difference *during* a Conflict.  The DM commands the NPC as they see fit instead of following game mechanics where they exist [the Round by Round tactical write-ups in the Monster Manual for example.] or they simply decide what the NPC does when there are no such mechanics to follow.

I fail to see a substantial difference between "the NPC does X, Y, Z during combat *because I say so*" and "You take 5 damage *because I say so.*"  I fail to see a substantial difference between "the DM doing what they want when there are no rules" versus "the DM telling you what happens...when there are no rules".
 
The DM doing what they wish when they wish is obviously Fiat, no one is arguing that I believe.  Fiat that occurs during a Conflict is what? An NPC [using all pertinent rules] that moves to Square A, makes an Attack Roll, Hits, Deals Damage does so why?  It is merely DM Fiat instead of rules.  There is no more Framing after "roll for initiative"; correct?  The NPC is "there" because of Framing, the NPC might be angry at the PCs because of Framing, and the NPC might go after a particular PC because of Framing; but there is also a lot of Fiat that can be involved during a Conflict.

20th level wizard vs party of level 1's.  Clearly it is a "Conflict" and it will clearly be settled using the rules.  But in actual game play it's not a Conflict at all even though there exists random outcomes for rolls, i.e. to-hit must still be rolled, saves will be rolled, damage will be rolled etc.  Cam also chimed in on this regarding the DM making a stat'd character that simply wins e.g. 20th wizard [Gandalf] vs. 1st level party [Noobs] and so did Josh.

[I guess the answer to this in particular would be that the DMG shows that is *not* in fact a Conflict because an EL1 party has no expectation of defeating a CR20 Wizard as per the "*" entry in the DMG.  But I get what you're saying.]

I'm trying to distill my main qualm into a more succinct form of question.

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.

I can live with this as it falls neatly into my Wizard+Spell Example.   If there's only 1 PC left alive of a party of 4, and NPC Wizard has only 2 spells left to cast "Magic Missile" and "Shield".  The NPC wizard casts Magic Missile and kills the PC according to game mechanics, the Conflict has now been resolved.  It was solved by using the game rules certainly, but what were the game rules used to determine that NPC Wizard would cast Magic Missile instead of Shield?  FRAMING? - That doesn't seem right at all.  It seems that DM Fiat determined not only that spell on that round, but other spells on other rounds, resulting in a final Conflict Resolution.  If all of your Conflict Resolution can be *based* on Fiat, [But not Fiat, because you roll etc.], then how at the end of the Conflict can you say Fiat did not determine a hell of a lot of the final Resolution of the fight?

[Shoggoth]

Nachofan,

I think I understand your confusion - lemme lay some groundwork, then I'll address your question to the best of my ability.  I think your confusion strikes at one of the difficult questions I have about GM fiat myself, so maybe I can frame the discussion some more.


First off, the idea that GM Fiat Resolution is bad is spot on, but you need to be careful no to confuse it with the normal role of the GM.  Technically, fiat is an "arbitrary decision", and it's the GMs job (at least in a traditional game like DnD)to make those decisions on a constant basis.  As the arbiter of the game and the creator of the world and all NPCs and challenges, it falls to the GM to make decisions both before the session starts and during play.  Is there a pool in the forest?  Is the sky overcast today?  Are the bugbears asleep when you come across them?  This is the entire job of GMing, and a GOOD GM tries their best to be fair to the players while providing interesting challenges.  

GM Fiat Resolution, on the other hand, only happens when a conflict is resolved.  The important thing here is that the conflict in question always has to happen at the level of granularity of the system. What I mean by that is that if one roll of the dice resolves an entire scene in the system you're using, then the GM deciding how the entire scene plays out is fiat resolution.  However, in a game like DnD, each conflict resolution point happens on an action (I swing my sword, I cast this spell, etc).  How the fight as a whole turns out is the result of a series of resolutions, swings of a sword, spell castings, etc.

So you're asking now, what if the GM decides to make the fight so unfairly tough that the PCs can't win?  Isn't that the same thing?

It's not, and here's why.  The GM, as part of his job, sets up the scenario and makes decisions on the fly as to what is included in the encounter.  The NPC's stats, spell lists, positioning, availability of cover in the dusty keep, etc is all his responsibility.  Part of being a good GM is to do these things fairly and well, but none of the is conflict resolution because you would never make a roll for any of it.  It's not a conflict that the system would adjudicate, any more than you would roll to see what spells you memorize that day.

To illustrate the point, let's list some scenarios -

1)  The GM gives the NPCs scores that are so low the NPCs can't succeed on a roll at all
2)  The GM gives the NPCs scores that are much lower than the PCs
3)  The GM gives the NPCs scores that are on par with the PCs
4)  The GM gives the NPCs scores that are much higher than the PCs, but still technically beatable
5)  The GM gives the NPCs scores that make any attempt at succeeding on a roll impossible

Scenario 3 is pretty standard.  Scenarios 2 and 4 could both be appropriate, and wouldn't really count as fiat.  After all, there's still a chance that on any given resolution (roll of the dice) it's possible for either side to succeed, even if it's unlikely, so the GM has not arbitrarily decided what happens, he's decided what the chances are (which is their job).  Scenarios 1 and 5 are the sticky ones.

Pretty much anyone would agree that if the target number has been set so high that you can't make the roll, then it's GM fiat resolution.  After all, if I can't succeed with a roll, then the GM's already decided whether or not I fail, right?  Maybe.  What about the wizard who decides to attack the NPC tank with his quarterstaff, and discovers that no matter what he rolls, he can't succeed, because the tank's AC has been set to challenge the fighter in the party?  Noone would consider that GM fiat, they'd tell the wizard he was being stupid for not playing to his strengths.

So what that leaves us with is that fiat resolution is only an issue when we feel that the conflict it is resolving is not a null contest.  If it's appropriate that the player couldn't possibly succeed, then it's not fiat, even if the GM ultimately made the decision to put the difficulty there arbitrarily.  Right?

Gotta run, I'll be back for this later....

[Josh]

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.

I do as well.  They are problematic to discuss in many regards however.  That is because at the level of the real world things are very complicated. 

The problem here is that again, things are complicated.  It is very easy to be simple when you are completely wrong, you are just making stuff up anyway.  But when trying to explain something real... Think back to school.  Imagine something like “the industrial revolution” or “Cell mitosis.”  Now explain them.  Heck explain a little part of them, it is complicated.  If someone presents something as truly simple, they are usually just simple minded.

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.

It is definitely deprotagonizing, and argument could be made for more or less.  But the fact that fiat resolution is bad, does not mean hosing the players is not also bad. 

So I have read through everything here and I am trying to boil stuff down. 

Yes I know, I'm back to "confusing" "Fiat" versus "Fiat Resolution" - but I do not see the difference *during* a Conflict.  The DM commands the NPC as they see fit instead of following game mechanics where they exist [the Round by Round tactical write-ups in the Monster Manual for example.] or they simply decide what the NPC does when there are no such mechanics to follow.

I fail to see a substantial difference between "the NPC does X, Y, Z during combat *because I say so*" and "You take 5 damage *because I say so.*"  I fail to see a substantial difference between "the DM doing what they want when there are no rules" versus "the DM telling you what happens...when there are no rules".

There are rules for what the NPCs do.  The rule is they are controlled by the GM.  Thats actually not even fiat, thats game play.  Deciding what the situation is, now that is fiat. (I do need to point out that it is not completely fiat based in DnD because of the concept of challenge ratings.)

Also the standard level 20 vs level 1 is meaningless.  In DnD you are not allowed to make such unbalanced matchups.  Remember that ultimately the GM is tasked with the responsibility of making challenges appropriate.

I hope this helps, because unfortunately I can't figure out exactly what your question is. You seem to be asking a few different things (and maybe you are) so I tried to cover those.  I also spared repeating what veekie and shoggoth already said.  So keep asking if you still have questions.

--------

I also re edited the first post, check it out.

[Nachofan99]

Josh, very good re-edit on the first page.  You lay down quite a bit more information and it's very helpful overall.

I feel like I have been taking up a lot of the space in this thread and I don't want to seem like I'm trolling so I'm going to put my massively excessive, over-wordy and poorly written ramble below in spoilers.

I've tried to boil down my question to as succinct a form as possible.

When you have already given your GM a lot of trust in terms of them building a world, NPCs, plot-hooks, story etc. using merely Fiat...
Then, what is the *harm* in letting the GM have this same "Fiat" in determining what happens under a condition that falls outside of the known game rules?

[Note, I am definitely saying that when there *is* a rule, the GM had damn well better follow it just as the players must. But when there is not?  Is it really so harmful to a game?]

There are rules for what the NPCs do.  The rule is they are controlled by the GM. Thats actually not even fiat, thats game play.  Deciding what the situation is, now that is fiat. (I do need to point out that it is not completely fiat based in DnD because of the concept of challenge ratings.)

See Josh, maybe this is where I'm getting confused. 

I understand that there are rules for ***HOW*** NPCs do what they do.  For example, when NPC #1 moves to square A they are following the rules of movement and rules for how many actions they can take in a round.  But what rules says NPC #1 moves to square A in round 1 of this Conflict?  This is a decision made entirely by the GM. Doesn't this decision have considerable weight when it comes to the next step of Conflict Resolution?  If the action *immediately before* making an attack roll [Clearly a Conflict Resolution Step] was subject entirely to Fiat, how does that not greatly impact upon the Conflict Resolution?

This NPC Wizard is casting on you *because I say so* but it's all-good in the hood because you get a saving throw.  Well that's great...sort-of.  Within the rules of D&D 3.5 (and this is certainly a much more system specific problem) the CR system is wonky.  You can engineer "fair" Conflicts that have entirely "unfair" Conflict Resolutions that are not "Fiat" but are so close, what's the difference?  And no, I'm not talking about level 20 vs. level 1.  You can do this kind of thing in many game systems.

What I mean by that is that if one roll of the dice resolves an entire scene in the system you're using, then the GM deciding how the entire scene plays out is fiat resolution.

Okay Shaggy my main man, what if you're in a situation as I described. 

Party of 4 players, 3 are down and out.  It's just NPC Wizard and PC standing, it's NPC Wizard's turn.  He has 2 spells; Magic Missile and Shield (These could be any other spells really).  The PC is down to 1HP and has no special anti-Magic Missile defenses.  The scene was Framed long ago, PCs have taken several turns as has NPC Wizard.  We are about to get to a situation where, truly, one damage roll is going to decide the outcome of the scene and it's merely a gesture at this point.  Give the PC a few HP and still, we're deciding the scene right here right now on this one die outcome.  I do understand there is a significant difference between making one roll for the entire scene, versus the fact they have had multiple rolls and Conflict Resolutions to land them in this bad situation, but, still here they are.

Isn't that exact situation "Pretty Please , GM May I?"

So what that leaves us with is that fiat resolution is only an issue when we feel that the conflict it is resolving is not a null contest.  If it's appropriate that the player couldn't possibly succeed, then it's not fiat, even if the GM ultimately made the decision to put the difficulty there arbitrarily.  Right?

RIGHT!  That is a very good question Shaggoth.

[veekie]

I'd like to take a moment to wonder aloud if a GM running NPCs and monsters either below or above their level of supposed intellect counts as fiat? I find dragons and many spellcasters to be played 'dumb', while at the same time, wild animals can become possessed of squad level tactics, and act coherently in combination with different species.

Also wondering if theres anything for actually having mechanics to determine what an npc can or cannot think of, short of a generic table of tactical options for various intelligence levels.

[Cam_Banks]

There is considerable overlap. On one hand, you don't need to create stats for the most powerful wizard in your campaign, the guy who creates all the spells and lives in his tower to the north of Adventureburg. If the players aren't supposed to confront him (at least, not RIGHT NOW) he doesn't need stats yet. However, if the players decide in the course of a session that dammit, they're going to go up there and kick his ass, you may be forced to use your GM powers and either tell the players "you're going to lose, and you know it" or grab some random powerful stats from somewhere and use those, or fudge it. You can't be expected to have this stuff all done and at hand. That's part of the job of the GM, being able to step in and adjudicate things on the fly when you need to.

But in a standard, routine sort of adventure, when the players are rattling along at a brisk pace and things are in hand, you don't want to ignore a rule and simply make an arbitrary decision if a rule exists to take care of things. You'd need some pretty good reason to do that, and I think most people would suggest there's never a very good reason to just say "OK, you lose" or "OK, you win" without system support. When it comes to situations for which no rule exists, then you're going to need to consider what rules might proxy for that in a pinch, or make a judgement call. With any luck, the action the players want to take for which there are no rules is not a critical story point upon which their ultimate success or failure (or enjoyment at the table) rests. That's the sign you're playing the wrong game.

The overlap is broad, because many GMs will extend their adjudication to modifying rules on the fly, or fudging numbers, or doing all sorts of things. I've done this many times. I do it usually as a means to simplify an irrelevant or boring encounter, moving things on to the real action. I've done it to save a PC's life before, offering an alternative to death at 0 HP. I've done it to make the players happier.

This is by some measure of ludological practice verboten and bad and all of that. I don't think I cared at the time. Given my druthers, the game would have been set up so that such a shift in rules was stipulated as a response to pacing, scale, etc. It didn't phase me, because I think I had things well in hand.

In theory and abstract discussion, of course some of this can be logically derived to be "bad" or "wrong." But I think in practice, we're all going to do this at some point or another. It's the reason people houserule things later on - rule/element/mechanic X didn't work, nobody liked it, or it wasn't there. Add rule/element/mechanic Y, and you're good to go.

Cheers,
Cam

[veekie]

How about in terms of design then? In terms of set up, admonishing individual GMs don't really help the situation, they require a fairly large amount of free rein to make a game work. However, a game designer should not allow something to fall to fiat, unless that 'something' is entirely irrelevant to the play genre the designer is aiming for.

[InnaBinder]

First, I'd like to commend Josh on attempting to clearly define - and clarify throughout the discussion - the terms he's using for his points, in an effort to reduce confusion.  This has sometimes been a sticking point for me in Josh-originated thread topics in the past.  Thank you, well done.  All quotes to follow are from Josh's first post, in the edit most recently posted as of this writing.

Fiat is “an arbitrary decision” and resolution is “a mechanism to resolve conflict” and conflict is when “the outcome of an event is contested”

I believe there is a further clarifier inherently implied but not stated in the definition presented of "fiat"; I read that implied clarifier as being "[an arbitrary decision]exclusive of applicable game rules".  Thus, the NPC Wizard's spell selection is not fiat because applicable game rules were used to select spells - although douchbaggery in spell selection is in no way inhibited.  A PC being pushed off a cliff and dying isn't fiat if applicable rules for Bull Rush and Balance/Reflex/Falling damage were applied, while a GM telling the party's Cleric out of the blue that he just slipped on the cliff's edge and needs to make a Reflex save or Balance check to avoid plummeting to his death is fiat because the Cleric's slip had nothing to do with any action the Cleric took - regardless of the outcome of Reflex/Balance checks.  Am I reading this correctly, or putting words in your mouth?

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

I'm reading the second sentence quoted as a clarification of the term 'deprotagonized' in the first; is this accurate?  Further, I'm reading this as "Fiat Resolution is the main culprit in player character deprotagonization and deprotagonization is always a Bad Thing^TM"; is this intended, or am I putting words in your mouth?  I ask because it appears to put additional strictures on the definition of Fiat Conflict Resolution.  Assuming I've parsed your comment correctly, does a PC being subject to and falling unconscious from Poison, in an encounter where the players knew Poison was a reasonable possibility, qualify as Fiat Conflict Resolution, or is an unconscious PC not deprotagonized (or is the specific deprotagonization of this instance not a Bad Thing^TM, in exception to the normal rule).  Is the targeting of the PC in this example the instance of DM Fiat that precipitates the Bad Thing^TM?  Even if such targetting were determined by random roll, is it still Fiat?

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.

Here again, I'm running into trouble because this appears to imply that this problem is specific and exclusive to Fiat Conflict Resolution.  Is a GM who makes Blue Dragons especially resistant to Illusion magics (for example, gives them an additional +4 to all Will saves vs Illusion) using Fiat Conflict Resolution, in part or in toto?  Is the GM who has made the Princess's captor a homophobic xenophobe, therefore applying a -8 modifier to the effeminate Elf Bard's Intimidate check and virtually assuring failure, using Fiat Conflict Resolution because the check has been rendered all but impossible?  What about a GM that applies situational modifiers to the above Intimidate check based on the roleplayed speech used to Intimidate?  These almost certainly qualify as 'using his own ideas and hangups' and will vary with different GMs.

[Josh]

Is it really so harmful to a game?

I can't believe I forgot that one. 

First point, with this argument (the “it's not so bad” argument), it means you lose and you are just trying to mitigate your loss.  But who cares, you lost.  You need to argue that its good, not that “it's only a little crappy.”

The reason it is bad is all the reasons I list above.

Party of 4 players, 3 are down and out.  It's just NPC Wizard and PC standing, it's NPC Wizard's turn.  He has 2 spells; Magic Missile and Shield (These could be any other spells really).  The PC is down to 1HP and has no special anti-Magic Missile defenses.  The scene was Framed long ago, PCs have taken several turns as has NPC Wizard.  We are about to get to a situation where, truly, one damage roll is going to decide the outcome of the scene and it's merely a gesture at this point.  Give the PC a few HP and still, we're deciding the scene right here right now on this one die outcome.  I do understand there is a significant difference between making one roll for the entire scene, versus the fact they have had multiple rolls and Conflict Resolutions to land them in this bad situation, but, still here they are.

Isn't that exact situation "Pretty Please , GM May I?"

In theory you made a number of bad choices leading to this.  Or had a string of bad luck.  And not you are gonna die.  You knew the dangers before you started.

There is considerable overlap. On one hand, you don't need to create stats for the most powerful wizard in your campaign, the guy who creates all the spells and lives in his tower to the north of Adventureburg. If the players aren't supposed to confront him (at least, not RIGHT NOW) he doesn't need stats yet. However, if the players decide in the course of a session that dammit, they're going to go up there and kick his ass, you may be forced to use your GM powers and either tell the players "you're going to lose, and you know it" or grab some random powerful stats from somewhere and use those, or fudge it. You can't be expected to have this stuff all done and at hand. That's part of the job of the GM, being able to step in and adjudicate things on the fly when you need to.

But in a standard, routine sort of adventure, when the players are rattling along at a brisk pace and things are in hand, you don't want to ignore a rule and simply make an arbitrary decision if a rule exists to take care of things. You'd need some pretty good reason to do that, and I think most people would suggest there's never a very good reason to just say "OK, you lose" or "OK, you win" without system support. When it comes to situations for which no rule exists, then you're going to need to consider what rules might proxy for that in a pinch, or make a judgement call. With any luck, the action the players want to take for which there are no rules is not a critical story point upon which their ultimate success or failure (or enjoyment at the table) rests. That's the sign you're playing the wrong game.

The overlap is broad, because many GMs will extend their adjudication to modifying rules on the fly, or fudging numbers, or doing all sorts of things. I've done this many times. I do it usually as a means to simplify an irrelevant or boring encounter, moving things on to the real action. I've done it to save a PC's life before, offering an alternative to death at 0 HP. I've done it to make the players happier.

This is by some measure of ludological practice verboten and bad and all of that. I don't think I cared at the time. Given my druthers, the game would have been set up so that such a shift in rules was stipulated as a response to pacing, scale, etc. It didn't phase me, because I think I had things well in hand.

In theory and abstract discussion, of course some of this can be logically derived to be "bad" or "wrong." But I think in practice, we're all going to do this at some point or another. It's the reason people houserule things later on - rule/element/mechanic X didn't work, nobody liked it, or it wasn't there. Add rule/element/mechanic Y, and you're good to go.

This is demonstrative of poor GMing skills combined with poor game mechanics and world design.  The recommendation here is switch to a better game and practice GMing. 

Thats one of the reasons real life examples often work poorly.  If you knew what you were doing wrong, you would not be having problems in the first place. 

 

Fiat is “an arbitrary decision” and resolution is “a mechanism to resolve conflict” and conflict is when “the outcome of an event is contested”

I believe there is a further clarifier inherently implied but not stated in the definition presented of "fiat"; I read that implied clarifier as being "[an arbitrary decision]exclusive of applicable game rules".  Thus, the NPC Wizard's spell selection is not fiat because applicable game rules were used to select spells - although douchbaggery in spell selection is in no way inhibited.  A PC being pushed off a cliff and dying isn't fiat if applicable rules for Bull Rush and Balance/Reflex/Falling damage were applied, while a GM telling the party's Cleric out of the blue that he just slipped on the cliff's edge and needs to make a Reflex save or Balance check to avoid plummeting to his death is fiat because the Cleric's slip had nothing to do with any action the Cleric took - regardless of the outcome of Reflex/Balance checks.  Am I reading this correctly, or putting words in your mouth?

Your sentiment is right on.  So close in fact that if I nitpicked it would be confusing, so yes in the broad stroke you are correct.

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

I'm reading the second sentence quoted as a clarification of the term 'deprotagonized' in the first; is this accurate?  Further, I'm reading this as "Fiat Resolution is the main culprit in player character deprotagonization and deprotagonization is always a Bad Thing^TM"; is this intended, or am I putting words in your mouth?  I ask because it appears to put additional strictures on the definition of Fiat Conflict Resolution.  Assuming I've parsed your comment correctly, does a PC being subject to and falling unconscious from Poison, in an encounter where the players knew Poison was a reasonable possibility, qualify as Fiat Conflict Resolution, or is an unconscious PC not deprotagonized (or is the specific deprotagonization of this instance not a Bad Thing^TM, in exception to the normal rule).  Is the targeting of the PC in this example the instance of DM Fiat that precipitates the Bad Thing^TM?  Even if such targetting were determined by random roll, is it still Fiat?

It is not fiat, unless the poison does not normally work that way.  But it may still be deprotagonizing.

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.

Here again, I'm running into trouble because this appears to imply that this problem is specific and exclusive to Fiat Conflict Resolution.  Is a GM who makes Blue Dragons especially resistant to Illusion magics (for example, gives them an additional +4 to all Will saves vs Illusion) using Fiat Conflict Resolution, in part or in toto?  Is the GM who has made the Princess's captor a homophobic xenophobe, therefore applying a -8 modifier to the effeminate Elf Bard's Intimidate check and virtually assuring failure, using Fiat Conflict Resolution because the check has been rendered all but impossible?  What about a GM that applies situational modifiers to the above Intimidate check based on the roleplayed speech used to Intimidate?  These almost certainly qualify as 'using his own ideas and hangups' and will vary with different GMs.

That is the GM changing a creature.  Fiat would be if he had the dragon fight on until it killed all the PC's no matter how much damage it took.

A GM's hangups are things like "you can't see him because he is a ninja(no roll)." 


I hope this clears stuff up a little, if not I'll keep trying.

[InnaBinder]

I hope this clears stuff up a little, if not I'll keep trying

Eureka, I lost my pants get exactly what you're saying and agree.

[Cam_Banks]

This is demonstrative of poor GMing skills combined with poor game mechanics and world design.  The recommendation here is switch to a better game and practice GMing. 

Thats one of the reasons real life examples often work poorly.  If you knew what you were doing wrong, you would not be having problems in the first place. 

Ah, of course. The "you're doing it wrong" argument! Followed up by the "well, they must be ignorant" argument when it's countered with "but we all had a good time."

Cheers,
Cam

[Josh]

This is demonstrative of poor GMing skills combined with poor game mechanics and world design.  The recommendation here is switch to a better game and practice GMing. 

Thats one of the reasons real life examples often work poorly.  If you knew what you were doing wrong, you would not be having problems in the first place. 

Ah, of course. The "you're doing it wrong" argument! Followed up by the "well, they must be ignorant" argument when it's countered with "but we all had a good time."

That's not an argument.  It is an explanation of the situation.  I love how you provide an example of a screwed up situation but can't possibly acknowledge that you might be doing something wrong.  Your entire position is that the tools are irrelevant, that means when there is a screwup it is the GM's fault.  So what's it gonna be?

Also is this a theoretical example or a real one?

[Cam_Banks]

That's not an argument.  It is an explanation of the situation.  I love how you provide an example of a screwed up situation but can't possibly acknowledge that you might be doing something wrong.  Your entire position is that the tools are irrelevant, that means when there is a screwup it is the GM's fault.  So what's it gonna be?

That's not my entire position at all. My feeling is that the tools are useful. I think being a good GM isn't defined solely by using all the tools all the time. I consider it a sign of a good GM to be capable of running by the seat of his pants and improvizing as needed, and I don't think the game itself is negatively impacted by this, especially if the outcome is rewarding to the players in terms of enjoyment, entertainment, or whatever other (using your terms) payouts are met.

An awesome game can be ruined by a bad GM or disruptive players. A great group of players with an awesome GM can be ruined by a bad game. The two aren't automatically true, however, and while the best situation is an awesome game with an awesome GM and a great group of players, there is often an insufficient margin of utility between the "best situation" and a somewhat less great situation for the response to be "change your game and learn yourself some good GM skills."

And yes, I frequently cite anecdotal situations from my own experience. It gets me out of the fishbowl of theory. I think people should use real world examples from their own experience more often.

Cheers,
Cam

[Nachofan99]

Alright, I think I am a lot more "on-board" overall with the thread.  Let's see if I can prove it.

First point, with this argument (the “it's not so bad” argument), it means you lose and you are just trying to mitigate your loss.  But who cares, you lost.  You need to argue that its good, not that “it's only a little crappy.”

Okay, I don't think I'm conceding defeat here.

I'm both agreeing and disagreeing with you here Josh, let me see if I can get 2 relatively concise statements about my beliefs in this matter.

1) Where clear rules exist for Conflict Resolution, the GM better use them.  Otherwise it's everything you said (deprotagonizing to players, "Pretty Please, GM May I? etc.) 99% of the time.

2) Where rules are unclear or do not exist for Conflict Resolution, the GM exists solely *to rule on such things*.  This is not only *not* a bad thing - but a good thing as well - because it saves a lot of time arguing about out-comes or setting up a complete series of fair/balanced/fun/play-tested house-rules in lieu of *actually continuing to play the game*.

What I was originally saying was that GM's are always doing #2, only sometimes they are also doing #1.  I think you agree with me here when you state that the GM is in charge of the NPCs by the rules and basically has carte blanch power to command them to perform arbitrary acts, before, during and after, Conflict Resolution.

I'm definitely claiming that #2 is good for gaming and #1 is bad roughly 99% of the time - I'd say the 1% is simply for "time savings".  Out of combat if PCs need to chop through a door, and there is no time constraint on it, there is still a Conflict Resolution- an in-game mechanic- for breaking down the door - and it's still somewhat significant as to the outcome for them to choose to go through that door or go another way etc.  But eventually a wooden door will simply break - do you need to use in game mechanics in this situation?  I would just rule as a GM that they break through eventually sans rolling and continue on.  [Note: Unless they wanted some kind of special "silent door breaking" or other detail in which case, they're interested enough in said door to commit game time to defeating that Conflict in a special way - game mechanics return immediately.]

I don't know about you, but when I game I do so in "Real-Time" not "Theoretical-Time".  Any little things that can cut corners *without* deprotagonizing the players gives us all more time to enjoy more protagonizing elements than simply "busting down a door" or "searching a room".  Some game-mechanics simply slow down the game to a crawl and by that fact eat in to time that could be used for more fun and exciting elements - it's part of the GM's job description that they keep the plot moving.

Everyone has had a session where the game has just ground to a halt because of some murky rules area that is relatively important for the PCs; I believe it's always better to continue going on with the game with a band-aid than take the time to immobilize the patient, wrap them in bandages, strap them down to a gurney of fair/balanced/shared House-Rules that I've somehow play-tested on the spot, *and then continue play*.  I don't know of anything more de-protagonizing to a player than the session ending early because we spent too much time on minutiae and not enough on plot.  Wasting gaming time is the devil in my book.

[Cam_Banks]

Everyone has had a session where the game has just ground to a halt because of some murky rules area that is relatively important for the PCs; I believe it's always better to continue going on with the game with a band-aid than take the time to immobilize the patient, wrap them in bandages, strap them down to a gurney of fair/balanced/shared House-Rules that I've somehow play-tested on the spot, *and then continue play*.  I don't know of anything more de-protagonizing to a player than the session ending early because we spent too much time on minutiae and not enough on plot.  Wasting gaming time is the devil in my book.

This is exactly my position and experience, as well. I think the only good counter to this that I can think of is if you've got one player whose character is pretty much all about searching for traps and sneaking around obstacles and so on, and if you keep skipping over those because they're dragging the game, you're also skipping over the parts of the game he's designed his character for.

This is also known in some circles as "the Rigger Problem."

Cheers,
Cam

[Zeke]

The "rigger" problem is, I feel, one of design, and as such Has little place in this discussion. I will start a thread dedicated to it after work today,

[Cam_Banks]

The "rigger" problem is, I feel, one of design, and as such Has little place in this discussion. I will start a thread dedicated to it after work today

I look forward to it.

Cheers,
Cam

[Josh]

That's not an argument.  It is an explanation of the situation.  I love how you provide an example of a screwed up situation but can't possibly acknowledge that you might be doing something wrong.  Your entire position is that the tools are irrelevant, that means when there is a screwup it is the GM's fault.  So what's it gonna be?

That's not my entire position at all. My feeling is that the tools are useful. I think being a good GM isn't defined solely by using all the tools all the time. I consider it a sign of a good GM to be capable of running by the seat of his pants and improvizing as needed, and I don't think the game itself is negatively impacted by this, especially if the outcome is rewarding to the players in terms of enjoyment, entertainment, or whatever other (using your terms) payouts are met.

If payouts are met and turn offs are avoided, you are doing well, like I say in the first post.  Improvisation (of rules) is needed less in better games.  And better GM's anticipate problems.  And everything I said holds true.

But you still hold yourself blameless.

An awesome game can be ruined by a bad GM or disruptive players. A great group of players with an awesome GM can be ruined by a bad game. The two aren't automatically true, however, and while the best situation is an awesome game with an awesome GM and a great group of players, there is often an insufficient margin of utility between the "best situation" and a somewhat less great situation for the response to be "change your game and learn yourself some good GM skills."

I have no idea what you mean.  Do you think that situation was good?

And yes, I frequently cite anecdotal situations from my own experience. It gets me out of the fishbowl of theory. I think people should use real world examples from their own experience more often.

Rhetoric. 

2) Where rules are unclear or do not exist for Conflict Resolution, the GM exists solely *to rule on such things*.  This is not only *not* a bad thing - but a good thing as well - because it saves a lot of time arguing about out-comes or setting up a complete series of fair/balanced/fun/play-tested house-rules in lieu of *actually continuing to play the game*.

The GM adjudicates rulings, similar to a judge.  They look at case law (other rules) and make decisions based on that.  They rule on corner cases and interpretations.  All of those jobs belong explicitly to the GM and they are not fiat (let alone fiat resolution).

Look at it like this.  You want to know how much your character is encumbered in game x.  You look at your strength and the chart of game x and it says that if you have 1-50 pounds you are at 0 and 50-100 pounds you are at -1.  You have exactaly 50.  The rules are not clear, so you turn to the GM.  He looks at the whole situation and makes a call.  That is now what you go by.  The GM look at other tables, other rules, the feel of the game etc.  That is not fiat, he has something to go by. Fiat is arbitrary. 

I don't know about you, but when I game I do so in "Real-Time" not "Theoretical-Time".  Any little things that can cut corners *without* deprotagonizing the players gives us all more time to enjoy more protagonizing elements than simply "busting down a door" or "searching a room".  Some game-mechanics simply slow down the game to a crawl and by that fact eat in to time that could be used for more fun and exciting elements - it's part of the GM's job description that they keep the plot moving.

Everyone has had a session where the game has just ground to a halt because of some murky rules area that is relatively important for the PCs; I believe it's always better to continue going on with the game with a band-aid than take the time to immobilize the patient, wrap them in bandages, strap them down to a gurney of fair/balanced/shared House-Rules that I've somehow play-tested on the spot, *and then continue play*.  I don't know of anything more de-protagonizing to a player than the session ending early because we spent too much time on minutiae and not enough on plot.  Wasting gaming time is the devil in my book.

I am guessing that you have not played many modern games?  This is much less prevalent in them.   

[Cam_Banks]

If payouts are met and turn offs are avoided, you are doing well, like I say in the first post.  Improvisation (of rules) is needed less in better games.  And better GM's anticipate problems.  And everything I said holds true.

Good, so we're in agreement. We'll run into all the tricky and sticky territory about "better" games in one of your other threads, I guess.

But you still hold yourself blameless.

Is this a problem? I think it'd be a problem if I needed to be blamed for something.

Cheers,
Cam