The Role of GM Fiat?

[Easy e]

This thread is not well thought out, but as I explore and learn more about Role-playing Games it has helped me observe that how players view GM Fiat in a game system varies a lot.

If you imagine it as a spectrum, on one hand you would have a game where everything that occurs is based on what eh GM says/interprets. On the other end of the spectrum, is a game where the interpretations of the GM are hard bound in; almost like an equation. X input goes in and you can expect Y output every time. Clearly, most games are not either of these extremes, but somewhere it the middle.

In action, I see a game like Dune that has a clear interplay between how and when a GM can use their "Threat" to take or drive actions. Then, there is a game like D&D where GMs have a lot of guidelines but ultimately the specifics are left to the GM. Finally, there are games like FATE/FUDGE where there are very broad guidelines and few specific results.

Which pole do you prefer a game to lean towards? A game with a wide range of GM Fiat to drive it, or one with a more structured approach to the GM's role/actions in the game? Why do you prefer it?

[MoiMagnus]

Which pole do you prefer a game to lean towards? A game with a wide range of GM Fiat to drive it, or one with a more structured approach to the GM's role/actions in the game? Why do you prefer it?

I have more trust on a human than on a ruleset to reach objectives like "fun" and "memorable".
I have more trust on a ruleset than on a human to reach objectives like "consistent" and "tactically/strategically interesting".

So the amount of GM fiat depends on what I want of the session.

[KorvinStarmast]

this thread is not well thought out,

Quelle Surprise.

The Role of GM Fiat?

To get the GM to the FLGS, just as the GM Nissan, GM VW or GMC Truck would.

More on topic, GM Fiat is a pretentious term used (far to frequently) to disparage the role of GM rulings (that keep play moving, be they brilliant or less so) during play.

And I think that you can't make a general case for or against it without getting system specific, so I'll suggest that your topic is too broad to facilitate useful discussion. But it will, I suspect, generate a lot of noise.

[Pex]

I have more trust on a human than on a ruleset to reach objectives like "fun" and "memorable".
I have more trust on a ruleset than on a human to reach objectives like "consistent" and "tactically/strategically interesting".

So the amount of GM fiat depends on what I want of the session.

For me, pretty much this.

The human fails when the DM is drunk on his own power where the only thing that matters is what is fun and memorable for him, and the players must obey.

The ruleset fails when there's not enough to the reach the objectives or too much consistency is unrecognizable and being interesting no longer exists.

[Altheus]

I drive the GM's fiat steering with my knees while making rude gestures out of the window. You'll recognise it, is has leopard skin seat covers and a set of blue furry dice hanging from the mirror.

Essentially, I'm the master of the game, says so in the title and I will tend to make rulings rather than blindly follow rules because I'm a human, not an application server for an rpg.

I run like this all the time, irrespective of the game I'm running because of a couple of incidents in Pendragon where one character died in childbirth and another went mad and ran in to the woods, becoming an NPC. All according to the rules but we lost a couple of well loved characters there.

[Telok]

Good DM fiat: "Huh, I never expected you guys to go that way... Hmm... OK, I guess there's a bandit ambush... About 20 of them... pretty well hidden... Roll for surprise."

Bad DM fiat: "A bunch of bandits surprise you and take you prisoner. You get sold as slaves to <plot npc> and <assorted bs crap> happens."

I'd distinguish between DM rulings, where theres an actual legitimate conflict or uncertainty in rules, and DM fiat where the rules have no meaning because they don't exist or are being ignored. In the above example, presume a game with combat & exploration rules but no rules about world building or what to do when the players go totally off the rails. Good fiat bridges the missing rules or makes up for bad rules, while the bad one ignores the existing rules even if they're good & appropriate. All this of course with the caveat that you have not terrible/janky/swiss cheese rules to work with.

[Vahnavoi]

A brief history of the role of a game master:

The role of a game master stems from the role of referee or umpire in wargames. The big daddy of modern wargaming is Kriegsspiel, developed as a teaching aide for military officers. The first version had very detailed, mechanistic rules. As a consequence, a criticism was raised that the game took too long to process and was too hard to learn. So, a revised edition reduced the number of mechanistic rules, in favor of a human, the umpire, making on-the-spot rulings based on their own expertise. This improved the flow of the game, but came with the caveat that the umpire should have actual battlefield experience to ensure realism.

Later, another even free-er version of the game was made, which eliminated hard rules entirely and reduced the game to a dialogue between the players and the umpire. As Kriegsspiel lost its military signifigance, it eventually found its way into hobby circles. From there, it influenced birth of fantastic wargames and then D&D.

Tabletop players who missed the memo keep going around in circles about it. Complaining about the game master making decisions is pointless, making decisions is why you have a game master in the first place. If their decisions lack quality, think of how to improve their quality directly, instead of trying to replace them with rules and making your games slower and harder to learn. If you want detailed mechanics and fast gameplay, get on with the times already and use a computer like a sane person.

Even more, games are fundamentally arbitrary. When you're appealing to rules instead of your game master, you are just replacing game master fiat with game designer fiat. You're just betting on said game designer having done a better job. There's nothing more to it.

[Batcathat]

Even more, games are fundamentally arbitrary. When you're appealing to rules instead of your game master, you are just replacing game master fiat with game designer fiat. You're just betting on said game designer having done a better job. There's nothing more to it.

While that is true, one advantage to appealing to the rules is that they're consistent. They may be arbitrary, but they are arbitrary in the same way today, tomorrow and in ten years, while a GM might rule differently in identical situations. Doesn't mean rules are inherently superior, of course, (and I agree with your point in general) but it's worth keeping in mind when making the comparison.

[Quertus]

Wow, what a thread. And what a conversation so far.

First off, there's a huge issue of terminology. What is meant by "GM fiat"?

On the one hand, there are scenarios like, "no matter what the PCs do, assume Flamsterd is immune to it", or "no matter what, the PCs get captured here".

These are rails, that are accomplished, not through game physics, but through GM fiat.

On another hand, there are scenarios like, "I try to use my rocket launcher to give our car a turbo boost", or "I've got boots that let me ignore difficult terrain - if I use them to charge overtop the dieing foe, can I step on him and kill him?".

These are things outside the rules, for which the GM needs to make Rulings.

On a third hand, there's things like, "Wizards seem to be too weak and die too easily; let's give them d10 HP and ability to cast in armor" or "monks are OP; at my table, you take a LA equal to your number of levels in Monk, for balance".

These are House Rules.

On a fourth hand, there's GMs who will make up "rulings" on the fly for things that exist in the rules, like, "I charge this guy" "OK, uh, I guess that provokes attacks of opportunity, and gives you an automatic crit…".

As there is no known term for this behavior, allow me to suggest the term, "please hit me with a clue-by-four" as an appropriate candidate.

Contrary to the thread title, I don't think that the OP actually wants a discussion of GM fiat.

So, what *is* the OP talking about?

Is it "the extent to which the system is structured to be run on rules vs rulings"? Is it, "the role of the GM in creating content", or even "… in creating physics"?

What is the actual thread topic? And do we really care how well we're staying on topic?

[Khedrac]

And then there is the use of the GM Fiat I heard about at university...

One Star Trek game (FASA I think) ended up with the party's ship a long, long way from Federation space (decades I think) - so a small green automobile (the GM's Fiat) pulled up and gave them a tow back to the Federation so that the campaign could continue.

[Vahnavoi]

While that is true, one advantage to appealing to the rules is that they're consistent. They may be arbitrary, but they are arbitrary in the same way today, tomorrow and in ten years, while a GM might rule differently in identical situations. Doesn't mean rules are inherently superior, of course, (and I agree with your point in general) but it's worth keeping in mind when making the comparison.

That's only a function of recording what was decided by fiat and then later making the same choice again, by fiat. The chief reason for a game designer to not do that is because those details come up so rarely that worrying about consistency is pointless. F.ex., you shouldn't actually care if a game master ruling about baby murder being Lawful and Good is not consistent between campaigns taking place in different settings and separated by months of real time.

---

.
First off, there's a huge issue of terminology. What is meant by "GM fiat"?

Oh god damn it. Don't muddle a clear-cut issue. It means arbitrary decisions made by a game master by authority of their position. Going on and on about different kinds of decisions is pointless, they are all fiat. Skip the semantic subcategorization and just talk about quality of decisions directly.

[Mastikator]

Speaking as someone who has been screwed by GM fiat more often than saved by it I can't say I have a high view of it. It subverts the players's autonomy and ability to roleplay and THAT is never fun. The cost of GM fiat is that the players no longer trust the DM or the rules. Why did we spend all this money on a PHB and a DMG and supplement books, and all this time reading them if we're just going "free form" for the "fun" (which it rarely even is)?

In my experience GM fiat has not made my experience more fun, it made it more memorable, but not as a positive memories. And I don't think it matters much the quality of the GM either, the GM and players derive their joy of the game from different sources in the game, when the GM tries to make it more fun they're automatically biased by their perspective and less likely to make the game more fun for the players. Instead I think the players should be responsible for bringing the fun, if you're invited to a dinner party the least you could bring is an appetite. I don't know why players can't be expected to create fun and memorable experiences. The GM doesn't have to shoulder every burden nor should they break the rules.

Edit- I should mention that I've had many different GM's and been one for many different groups and played many different game systems. This is one thing that has been consistent, when the GM changes things the price is I don't trust them and I lose interest in the mechanics and in the roleplay.

[Rynjin]

The role of fiat is as a last ditch effort to keep things moving in the absence of a more organic way to do so. The party is stuck and can't figure out what to do, they've wandered so far off into the metaphorical weeds that your only option is just to make **** up on the fly, etc.

This goes for rulings as well. Unless it's a very complex matter (most rules questions can be looked up in under 30 seconds), you can take the time to figure out how it's supposed to work and remember it going forward if it comes up again. Hell of a lot easier to remember words on a page and how to find them than something you say off the cuff because you're not sure and you're too lazy to look for it.

[Batcathat]

That's only a function of recording what was decided by fiat and then later making the same choice again, by fiat. The chief reason for a game designer to not do that is because those details come up so rarely that worrying about consistency is pointless. F.ex., you shouldn't actually care if a game master ruling about baby murder being Lawful and Good is not consistent between campaigns taking place in different settings and separated by months of real time.

True, a GM that records every important decision they make and refer back to those records in the future would be functionally identical to having rules for those situations. I don't know about you, but I've never played with a GM (including myself) that has recorded every ruling or improvised mechanic they've made (Important house rules? Sure. But not the smaller stuff). I'm not saying it can't be done or even that it shouldn't be done, but I doubt it is done in most cases.

[Vahnavoi]

It's rare due to issues of technology. You need to write your rulings down, catch them on tape etc.. Then you also need to take effort to go through and organize your records - unorganized records aren't worth it because you stll have to remember the thing to know to look for the thing. I've played a lot of play-by-post where everything that appears in the game is recorded by default, and it doesn't lead to improved consistency without periodically cross-referencing old material. More, other players also need to pay attention or they might not even notice.

[Easy e]

Quelle Surprise.

Hugs and Kisses back to you my fellow traveler on this forum.

And do we really care how well we're staying on topic?

No. No one cares about the thread topic as the purpose it to spur dialogue, thought, and discussion.

[PhoenixPhyre]

In my opinion, consistency is overrated.

The real world is a highly inconsistent place. Sure, the basic laws are self-consistent...but due to interactions between them, anything at the human scale isn't consistent. So forcing consistency at that level makes the (fictional) world feel artificial. If every tree is identical, every stone wall is the same, every lock is the same, and every person can be convinced by the same argument (given the right numbers), then you don't have a real-seeming world; you have a cardboard and canvas stage, a Potemkin world. And I want something with more depth.

Consistency is important when the situations are the same. And situations are rarely entirely the same.

Oh, and rules lookups during play stink. Because they completely break the flow. Any system that requires lookups (in tables or whatever) for common events is one that I'd rather not play in.

Personally, I come from a background of free-form RP. So for me, the default is rulings. More precisely, decisions. TTRPGs (at least the ones I play) have delegated most of that decision-making authority to one person. It's not fiat, it's not ignoring rules, it's using rules as they were intended. As assists. As scaffolds. As crutches to ease decision-making. As a shared language for resolving events, when that's necessary. Rules don't rule, people do. I find that people who want to shove all the responsibility onto rules are (in my experience, thinking of the actual people I've played with) also the most prone to abuse of rules and abuse of others--they justify themselves by pointing to the rules. They've offloaded the responsibility of being table-centric and acting as careful stewards of the shared experience (both as players and as the DM) onto the developers (who are conveniently not at the table).

No set of rules makes an intentionally malicious DM better. Because no set of rules can constrain that DM; only players can. Leave the meta-rules to the people--they're closer to the actual situation. Trying to encode that "defensive gameplay" into the ruleset just makes things clunky and (ironically) more easily abused. Light and flexible, plus trust between players and DM (without which there isn't a satisfying game IMO no matter what) is my preference.

Maybe this should go in the unpopular (on this forum) opinions thread, but I find the idea of RAW as anything with intrinsic importance or relevance beyond a set of suggestions for how rule defaults might be set to be absurd and harmful to the game. The only real rules are the ones the players and the DM come up with collectively. Everything else is just suggestions.

[Batcathat]

In my opinion, consistency is overrated.

The real world is a highly inconsistent place. Sure, the basic laws are self-consistent...but due to interactions between them, anything at the human scale isn't consistent. So forcing consistency at that level makes the (fictional) world feel artificial. If every tree is identical, every stone wall is the same, every lock is the same, and every person can be convinced by the same argument (given the right numbers), then you don't have a real-seeming world; you have a cardboard and canvas stage, a Potemkin world. And I want something with more depth.

I agree, but I don't think anyone means something like that when saying that they want more consistency. Consistency is not every tree being identical, consistency is every tree following the same basic pattern unless there is a reason not to.

Consistency is important when the situations are the same. And situations are rarely entirely the same.

True. But similar situations should be resolved similarly, I think. If a PC want to persuade an NPC to do something, "roll for a skill", "describe what you say" and "okay, you persuade them" are all acceptable responses from the GM, but I would prefer it if it was the same response every time (even if the specifics are a little different) and not seemingly arbitrarily varying depending on the GMs mood or whatever.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I agree, but I don't think anyone means something like that when saying that they want more consistency. Consistency is not every tree being identical, consistency is every tree following the same basic pattern unless there is a reason not to.

Trees in the real world don't follow anything like a similar basic pattern. Variety and dissimilarity and fact-sensitivity are the rule; similarity is the exception. And the existence of similarity means there was already a decision from someone (ie fiat)--nothing exists in the fictional world that wasn't placed there by someone. It's decisions all the way down.

Personally, I find "the DC to pick all locks is 15 +- 2 unless I say otherwise" to be more jarring than "locks differ. Some locks will be trivial to pick; others nigh impossible. Yet others somewhere in between. The situation/fiction on the ground will determine which is which." And for those trivial/impossible ones, those are sliding scales depending on the situation. Given all the time in the world, a nigh-impossible one may be much easier. Given no time or equipment at all, a trivial one may pose a challenge worth rolling for.

True. But similar situations should be resolved similarly, I think. If a PC want to persuade an NPC to do something, "roll for a skill", "describe what you say" and "okay, you persuade them" are all acceptable responses from the GM, but I would prefer it if it was the same response every time (even if the specifics are a little different) and not seemingly arbitrarily varying depending on the GMs mood or whatever.

IMO, that's the worst example to choose. Social stuff is intrinsically the most fact-bound part of games. In some cases, trying to persuade X to do Y may be literally trivial--they already were going to do it. In other cases, they have only a tiny barrier, so any attempt will work. No roll needed. In yet other cases, they're persuadable but the difficulty will depend on how you approach it[1]. In yet others, the best you can do is talk your way out of a catastrophe and into just a stinging rebuke (degrees of failure). NPCs are people, not stock elements with fixed dialogue trees.

And I find the idea that you always need to roll for everything to be horrible for gameplay. Rolls, like rules generally, are tools to be used when there is uncertainty to resolve. And when at least two of the possible outcomes are interesting (necessitating a choice between outcomes).

[1] persuading the corrupt guard to let you through will be trivial if you offer cash; impossible if you appeal to his honor. In contrast, persuading the paladin to let X slide may be possible if you can appeal to his desire for mercy, while a bribe will just get you in more trouble.

[MoiMagnus]

True. But similar situations should be resolved similarly, I think.

Though for this, GM fiat helps a lot. Rulesets can be very bad at maintaining consistency as soon as you don't just want "when things are exactly the same, the result are exactly the same" by instead "when things are similar, for a human definition of similar (not using "the rule says they are similar", as that's cheating), then the results are similar".

Taking the first example that come to my mind, some failed ability checks can be retried, as they are the kind of actions that if you try multiple time in a row, you might eventually succeed. Other failed ability checks cannot be retried, as as long as the situation has not changed there is no reason for the result to be any different.

But most practical situations are between the two extremes. Sure, you might be able to try and try again to climb a surface and eventually succeed as you learn from your mistakes. But maybe your climbing technics and gear is not adequate to this wall, so it makes sense that even if the climb is not that hard, you in particular will not be able to climb it even if you try and try again. Similarly, if you fail a knowledge check, chances are that you just don't know the answer, but maybe you just forgot it and by taking more time to retrace your thought and memories, you can remember it.

Assuming your ruleset doesn't have an absurd level of granularity (with each kind of action coming with a DC and a rule on how to reduce the variance and modify the DC when you try again), it will be forced to classify clearly which check is of which kind, necessarily leading to corner cases in which two similar checks are classify in different categories. Perfect consistency is thus unreachable.

But while perfect consistency is unreachable, a GM will be able to favour local consistency, which is to give priority to ensuring that the current resolution is consistent with the last few resolutions that are somewhat similar (those that are still in the player's mind) over whatever could have happened the previous year or during the beta-test of the game a decade earlier.

[KorvinStarmast]

Hugs and Kisses back to you my fellow traveler on this forum.

1. No tongues
2. It's weird to kiss through a COVID mask.
3. Hugs right back at ya.

[Telok]

No set of rules makes an intentionally malicious DM better. Because no set of rules can constrain that DM; only players can.

In my experience the game rules are less for trying to fix "screw you" DMs and more for providing a reliable and impartial framework for conflict resolution. Most rpg writers generally produce acceptable & playable rule sets that are reasonably fun-enabling. Which is especially important for inexperienced DMs, as they often don't have a great understanding of why the rules exist and how they can promote fun. Its also often important for DMs who are bad at math to have guidance & baselines so they don't basically crush the PCs with impossible rolls.

One thing I'd note is that certain games like Amber Diceless pretty much run on what I'd call "guided fiat with assumed mastery". What I mean by that is the rules lay out guidance of general principals and rely on the DM having a certain minimum level of mastery of the subject matter & collaborative free form storytelling skills. With a DM who meets the requirements Amber Diceless is a great game, and if a DM just isn't that good its a completely horrible mess.

[Jay R]

To put it in programming terms, the role of GM decisions having authority over written rules is exception-handling.

The rules were written by somebody with a vision for a game, and, usually, a lot of time spent considering that game and the rules. Assuming good judgment and careful design, the rules writer has put more thought into the meaning and goals and effects of the rules in an infinite number of situations than any other person. Therefore, in general, the rules writer(s) are the people most likely to come up with be the best possible general solution for the general case

In the middle of a game, the GM is looking at a single, specific, diamond-hard situation. He or she knows more about these players, about this situation, about this world, and about this quest than the rules writer(s) could possibly know. The GM also knows far more about the immediate situation (what the NPCs' goals are, what's behind the door, how sturdy the floor is, what the PCs are likely to face next, etc.) than the PCs know. The GM is absolutely the only person who can know if an exception to the rules is needed right now, in this exact situation. The PCs often cannot know the specific reason a decision was made, because it involves something the PCs don't know, and which would spoil the game to reveal.


However, anybody who has played RPGs for any length of time knows that situations will come up in which an earlier decision will have unintended and far-reaching consequences that can spoil the session, or in some extreme cases, even the game. [And any programmer knows that a line of code can have unintended and far-reaching consequences that can spoil the program.]

The players have a strong bias in favor of one single character in the game. That's not a bug; it's a feature. You're supposed to identify with your PC. The GM will feel various emotional attachments to the PCs, to the NPCs, to the world design, to the campaign arc, and/or to the next planned encounter. It's important to keep all of those in balance.

Therefore, I conclude that:
1. In general, the GM should follow the rules. The players deserve to know the rules of the game they play. [Except for in-world effects that they and the people they've met have no experience with. A party does not "deserve" to know about strange monster versions in a mystical swamp that nobody has ever explored.]
2. The GM should have the authority to make judgment calls that conflict with specific written rules.
3. The GM should be very careful in making those judgment calls, recognizing that decisions can have unintended consequences.
4. The GM should be ready to recognize that his or her decision is hurting the game, and make a later decision, modifying or erasing an older one when necessary.
5. A GM needs excellent judgment.
6. If you trust the GM's judgment at the start of the game, you should continue to trust it when a GM decision occurs. [This can include mentioning your concerns to the GM outside the game.
7. If enough bad situations occur due to GM judgment, you should start looking for a GM whose judgment you trust.

Specific examples of GM decisions that went against the rules and that I believe helped the game.

A. I had a set of rubber spiders, which I used as giant spiders, straight out of the rulebook. When I put them on the table, one player's face went white; she was terrified. They suddenly became the wimpiest spiders in the world, each dying to a single hit, and the minis were off the table in thirty seconds

B. The party was being attacked by gnolls coming up the stairs. One PC decided to leap over their heads to the landing below them, to start attacking them from the rear. He rolled a 1. It was a cool idea, and I couldn't see how he wouldn't reach the landing, so I announced, "You land badly, twisting your ankle. You can still fight, leaning against the wall, but you cannot move until you get healing." After that session, I announced a rule that a fumble might mean that you succeeded, but with consequences.

C. When starting a game, I wouldn't let players choose elf or dwarf characters. That's because the dwarves were believed to be wiped out in the dwarf/frost giant wars 200 years ago. In fact, the remaining dwarves are all slaves of the frost giants, and rescuing them was an adventure I thought would be good at 10th level or so. There were no elves in the world. They would eventually come from another plane, and would be the elves from Terry Pratchett's book Lord and Ladies.

I will not provide specific examples of poor GM judgment. You can find those anywhere.

[KorvinStarmast]

One thing I'd note is that certain games like Amber Diceless pretty much run on what I'd call "guided fiat with assumed mastery". What I mean by that is the rules lay out guidance of general principals and rely on the DM having a certain minimum level of mastery of the subject matter & collaborative free form storytelling skills. With a DM who meets the requirements Amber Diceless is a great game, and if a DM just isn't that good its a completely horrible mess.

Yet another game that I'd like to play some day. Been years since I read the Zelazny books ...

[Batcathat]

Trees in the real world don't follow anything like a similar basic pattern.

Yes, they do. An oak, a palm tree and a pine look rather different from each other but they have enough in common for humans to deem them all as trees. I'm not saying things should be identical, just that they should be consistent (or have a good reason for not following the pattern).

Personally, I find "the DC to pick all locks is 15 +- 2 unless I say otherwise" to be more jarring than "locks differ. Some locks will be trivial to pick; others nigh impossible. Yet others somewhere in between. The situation/fiction on the ground will determine which is which." And for those trivial/impossible ones, those are sliding scales depending on the situation. Given all the time in the world, a nigh-impossible one may be much easier. Given no time or equipment at all, a trivial one may pose a challenge worth rolling for.

Again, I'm not saying things should be identical. The concept of locks and lock-picking can be consistent even if locks aren't identical. And of course the GM should adapt to the circumstances, what I'm saying is that they should do so in a consistent way, so it's not just the GM's whims of the moment that decide the outcome.

It's not unlike how a court of law acts (or how they should act, at least, let's not get into a thing over how they live up to it or fail to do so). They should consider the details of the specific case in both judging guilt and deciding the punishment but the principles behind how they do so should be consistent, so that it's not just the whims of the judge that decides whether you to prison for a month or a decade.

[Pex]

In my opinion, consistency is overrated.

The real world is a highly inconsistent place. Sure, the basic laws are self-consistent...but due to interactions between them, anything at the human scale isn't consistent. So forcing consistency at that level makes the (fictional) world feel artificial. If every tree is identical, every stone wall is the same, every lock is the same, and every person can be convinced by the same argument (given the right numbers), then you don't have a real-seeming world; you have a cardboard and canvas stage, a Potemkin world. And I want something with more depth.

Trees in the real world don't follow anything like a similar basic pattern. Variety and dissimilarity and fact-sensitivity are the rule; similarity is the exception. And the existence of similarity means there was already a decision from someone (ie fiat)--nothing exists in the fictional world that wasn't placed there by someone. It's decisions all the way down.

Personally, I find "the DC to pick all locks is 15 +- 2 unless I say otherwise" to be more jarring than "locks differ. Some locks will be trivial to pick; others nigh impossible. Yet others somewhere in between. The situation/fiction on the ground will determine which is which." And for those trivial/impossible ones, those are sliding scales depending on the situation. Given all the time in the world, a nigh-impossible one may be much easier. Given no time or equipment at all, a trivial one may pose a challenge worth rolling for.

Ergo why we debate so much. I value consistency. I applaud the "the DC to pick all locks is 15 +- 2 unless I say otherwise" concept. I enjoy knowing what my character can do without needing DM permission for everything because the DM doesn't need to permit it specifically since it's already permitted by playing the game.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Ergo why we debate so much. I value consistency. I applaud the "the DC to pick all locks is 15 +- 2 unless I say otherwise" concept. I enjoy knowing what my character can do without needing DM permission for everything because the DM doesn't need to permit it specifically since it's already permitted by playing the game.

I think the distinction (and this is just supposition) is that you come primarily from a game-first point of view and I come from a fiction-first point of view.

To me, the fiction drives the game, with the game layer being just a way to interface with the fiction while staying sane. The printed game rules are merely tools to be used where appropriate; the real rules are the interpersonal ones set at the table level. Action resolution follows from the fiction wherever possible, with rules giving way if there's a conflict. And since I expect (strongly) that the fiction layer between any two games will differ strongly, I expect that the observed rules will vary strongly. And I enjoy that variance. The times I've had game-first DMs, I've felt that I could get a better experience playing a video game. Because humans make really bad rules engines and the graphics stink.

My perception is that you're coming from the opposite, that the fiction must take a back seat to the rules when they conflict.

It's a matter of taste, but I'm glad that there are systems that cater to each of us. And I don't expect those systems to agree with each other; there is no One True System for all cases.

Yes, they do. An oak, a palm tree and a pine look rather different from each other but they have enough in common for humans to deem them all as trees. I'm not saying things should be identical, just that they should be consistent (or have a good reason for not following the pattern).

Again, I'm not saying things should be identical. The concept of locks and lock-picking can be consistent even if locks aren't identical. And of course the GM should adapt to the circumstances, what I'm saying is that they should do so in a consistent way, so it's not just the GM's whims of the moment that decide the outcome.

It's not unlike how a court of law acts (or how they should act, at least, let's not get into a thing over how they live up to it or fail to do so). They should consider the details of the specific case in both judging guilt and deciding the punishment but the principles behind how they do so should be consistent, so that it's not just the whims of the judge that decides whether you to prison for a month or a decade.

Here's the thing. That level of consistency (ie when a check is called for, how do you mechanically perform it?) is, I think, not a question here. I fully agree that you shouldn't sometimes call for a roll under check and sometimes a dice pool or sometimes use d20 and sometimes use 3d6 (for the same category of thing). To me, that goes without saying. Pick one general system and use the core mechanic(s).

But the threshold question of "is there enough evidence to go to trial" (in this context "should you call for a check in the first place") is the interesting one. And one that's intrinsically fact bound. To the point that there's wide variance in legal circles as to what exactly counts. The general principles don't take you very far; they're at a much higher level of generality.

Consistency at a high level is easy, but most of the interesting rulings come at a much lower level. "It's a tree" tells me functionally zero about how hard it is to climb. It may have limbs starting at ground level or it may be a sequoia, with a bare trunk for 100 ft. Even more, the other parts of the situation beyond just the tree itself have a major influence--everything from the weather to the character's gear to the pressure intendant in the situation can change the result from a default to trivial or impossible.

5e has some general principles for checks (marking fact-bound questions with a *):
1. Is the proposed action possible?(*)
2. Is the chance of failure meaningful(*, note that "meaningful" is an inherently subjective, DM-judgement term)?
3. Would both success AND failure be interesting(*, again, a seriously subjective question that the system cannot answer)?
4. If the answers to any of 1-3 are no, don't roll a check. Go to automatic success (1 = yes, 2 or 3 = no) or automatic failure (1 = no). STOP.
5. Decide what type of check is called for and what sources of proficiency (if any) will always be allowed. Players can suggest alternate sources of proficiency. (*, but fairly constrained subjectivity).
6. Decide how hard the check will be in the range [5, 30], with strong preference for [10-20] (*).
7. Call for a check, where the player rolls 1d20 + appropriate modifiers (set by the type of check) and succeeds if total >= DC.
8. Narrate the changes in the situation (*).

Note that only steps 4 and 7, the actual mechanical resolution steps, aren't fact-intensive.

[truemane]

Ergo why we debate so much. I value consistency.

I think the distinction (and this is just supposition) is that you come primarily from a game-first point of view and I come from a fiction-first point of view.

It's the difference between watching a sporting event and watching a movie about a sporting event.

One kind of fun is the gathering of stable, objective resources and using them to assail objective, stable obstacles, and basically creating (to paraphrase Randall Munroe) a weighted number generator, the output of which is used to craft a narrative.

And the other kind of fun is using the rules as a stable, communally understood backdrop to form a platform for a narrative, which the RNG supports but does not define.

Some people prefer watching the Superbowl, others would rather watch Rudy, but whichever camp you're in, implying that the opposite camp is somehow spending their free time incorrectly is absurd.

To the point above, I think GM fiat is absolutely essential, no matter which camp you're in. RPG rules suffer the same basic tension of every rule system that has ever been, from the penal code to instruction booklets: to the degree they are detailed and accurate they are unsuable; to the degree they are usable they are incomplete and inaccurate. No rules system can do both effectively. So every rules system is a series of compromises wrapped around an invisible value system.

Which is to say, even if you're playing the hardest of hardcore, oldest of old-school simulationist games, it still has to be someone's job to hold to that goal in mind and continue shepherding the experience when the letter of the law fails.

And not for nothing, but one of the more insidious byproducts of delegating all your table authority to the rules is that, in practice, you really wind up delegating your table authority to those players who are the most comfortable arguing about the rules out loud. Which, without very careful and deliberate effort, can prioritize the experience of one fairly specific demographic of player over others.

So even when I'm playing a rules-heavy game, I always make it clear that, in session, the final call will always be mine. Even if it's just to stop people from healing the sick by drowning them, or telling the Monk that they know how to use their own hands.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's the difference between watching a sporting event and watching a movie about a sporting event.

One kind of fun is the gathering of stable, objective resources and using them to assail objective, stable obstacles, and basically creating (to paraphrase Randall Munroe) a weighted number generator, the output of which is used to craft a narrative.

And the other kind of fun is using the rules as a stable, communally understood backdrop to form a platform for a narrative, which the RNG supports but does not define.

Some people prefer watching the Superbowl, others would rather watch Rudy, but whichever camp you're in, implying that the opposite camp is somehow spending their free time incorrectly is absurd.

To the point above, I think GM fiat is absolutely essential, no matter which camp you're in. RPG rules suffer the same basic tension of every rule system that has ever been, from the penal code to instruction booklets: to the degree they are detailed and accurate they are unsuable; to the degree they are usable they are incomplete and inaccurate. No rules system can do both effectively. So every rules system is a series of compromises wrapped around an invisible value system.

Which is to say, even if you're playing the hardest of hardcore, oldest of old-school simulationist games, it still has to be someone's job to hold to that goal in mind and continue shepherding the experience when the letter of the law fails.

And not for nothing, but one of the more insidious byproducts of delegating all your table authority to the rules is that, in practice, you really wind up delegating your table authority to those players who are the most comfortable arguing about the rules out loud. Which, without very careful and deliberate effort, can prioritize the experience of one fairly specific demographic of player over others.

So even when I'm playing a rules-heavy game, I always make it clear that, in session, the final call will always be mine. Even if it's just to stop people from healing the sick by drowning them, or telling the Monk that they know how to use their own hands.

I agree strongly with all of this, especially the bold sections. The latter one came as a shock when I realized it, a realization that fundamentally changed how I saw rules. Someone has to decide. And I much prefer the DM to take that role rather than whoever is most obstreperous (hyperbole alert, but only mild) and vocal. Even more, I prefer if, when actual rules-facing things (ie "here's a gap in the rules we've come up with, how do we want to handle it"), the table discusses it and either explicitly leaves it up to the DM's judgement or comes to some settled conclusion. Rules are an ongoing conversation, not a set of weapons and armor.

[Pex]

I agree the DM decides. The issue is where the line is to be drawn where the DM decides and where the DM doesn't have to decide because the rules already define how it works. The existence of healing by drowning rules doesn't mean having rules is bad.