Quote from: MGuy;566044The fact that games leave different things open to GM fiat isn't something you design "for" its something you explicitly don't design for. If you don't make rules for ABC you're not designing for A, B, or C. AS I just said, if the GM is a "Thing" then fiat is almost all he does.

Mcguy, that is still a design decision and therefore part of design. Its actually a very important feature of design. At this point you are just using semantics to argue people can't design around gm fiat, the truth is they do it all the time. 1E is very much designed around GM fiat and it produces a different kind of pkay than 3E, which has more mechanics for things like social interactions.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;566043Except it is something you design for because different games leave different openings for fiat. Some games have a roll for A,B and C. Others have rolls for A and C but leave B to GM fiat. This very much impacts how the game plays and where to encourafe fiat in the system is an important design decision.

Exactly. And games that appear to have rules for everything seem to discourage GM fiat in most GMs -- except in those rare cases where there are no rules to cover the situation (which MGuy does admit will happen).

That's not what I want in an RPG so I design games that encourage GM fiat in certain areas by not even attempting to be "rules complete".  If your goal as a game designer is to minimize the need from GM fiat, then my design methods probably fail. However, if your goal is to encourage the use of GM fiat then my design methods may work.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;566049Mcguy, that is still a design decision and therefore part of design. Its actually a very important feature of design. At this point you are just using semantics to argue people can't design around gm fiat, the truth is they do it all the time. 1E is very much designed around GM fiat and it produces a different kind of pkay than 3E, which has more mechanics for things like social interactions.

I'm the one playing around with semantics?

I say "When talking about designing something you can't design around GM fiat"
You say "You can"
I then go on and repeatedly tell you you can't and why.
You finally realize you actually can't (like I said) and now are saying that deciding NOT to design something is part of design.

If you're deciding to not design something why the fuck would you be involved in conversations about designing the part that you're not going to design for? If you're talking about designing Social Interaction rules you don't enter that conversation and tell everybody you don't want Social Interaction rules.. If you're not going to design it then you fuck off.

Quote from: MGuy;566051I'm the one playing around with semantics?

I say "When talking about designing something you can't design around GM fiat"
You say "You can"
I then go on and repeatedly tell you you can't and why.
You finally realize you actually can't (like I said) and now are saying that deciding NOT to design something is part of design.

If you're deciding to not design something why the fuck would you be involved in conversations about designing the part that you're not going to design for? If you're talking about designing Social Interaction rules you don't enter that conversation and tell everybody you don't want Social Interaction rules.. If you're not going to design it then you fuck off.

Because design entails both the literal design of specific mechanics for specific situtations, as well as deciding where mechanics are not needed. Beyond that there is a good deal of space in between when the designer decides how much room to leave for gm fiat when setting the mechanics themselves. So even if I do design social mechanics with dice, I still make choices about how deep that goes versus how much space there is for the GM to invent. And when I dont create mechanics for social interaction I am still oferring up a system and usually even firm guidelines. The system is one based on playing your character and acting on your characters motivations, while the GM does the same for NPCs.

Just to be clear though, in my own game system we do have social skill rolls. I have commented a good deal on my ambivalence about them however and I think the heart of play actually occurs outside the rolls. I usually encourage GMs and players to make something like a Command roll only when the Gm has some doubt about the outcome. If he can intuit the result based on what and how the PC says (and his knowledge about the person the PC is speaking to) then I say forgo the roll.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;566053Because design entails both the literal design of specific mechanics for specific situtations, as well as deciding where mechanics are not needed. Beyond that there is a good deal of space in between when the designer decides how much room to leave for gm fiat when setting the mechanics themselves. So even if I do design social mechanics with dice, I still make choices about how deep that goes versus how much space there is for the GM to invent. And when I dont create mechanics for social interaction I am still oferring up a system and usually even firm guidelines. The system is one based on playing your character and acting on your characters motivations, while the GM does the same for NPCs.

Just to be clear though, in my own game system we do have social skill rolls. I have commented a good deal on my ambivalence about them however and I think the heart of play actually occurs outside the rolls. I usually encourage GMs and players to make something like a Command roll only when the Gm has some doubt about the outcome. If he can intuit the result based on what and how the PC says (and his knowledge about the person the PC is speaking to) then I say forgo the roll.

Ok this is the thing. If you're not offering up a social system then you're not going to be a part of the conversations about designing them (if you're not a troll). If you do get yourself involved in that then you're not going to be talking about a design that depends on people not using your design specs to work. If you're just deciding that there's going to be a cut off point that's almost 100% expected because you're not feasibly able to get every detail into a ruleset. But even then you're not designing around GM fiat you're just deciding when enough is enough.

Quote from: MGuy;566056. But even then you're not designing around GM fiat you're just deciding when enough is enough.

this is just another way of saying designing around GM fiat

Quote from: MGuy;566056Ok this is the thing. If you're not offering up a social system then you're not going to be a part of the conversations about designing them (if you're not a troll).

I don't offer a social system, but I see no reason why I should not be involved in threads about designing social system -- arguing for allowing as much of the social system to be "GM decides" as possible.  "GM decides" is a rule after all. It may not be the type of rule those wanting everything codified so the GM does not have to decide want, but I have as much right to argue for what I want in social rules as those who want things all codified do. Not arguing for what I want in game rules means those who want something else get heard unopposed. Sorry, I am unwilling to concede the field just because those who disagree with me on the issue would rather I not be there.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;566058this is just another way of saying designing around GM fiat

If you want to stretch the meaning of designing around GM fiat to mean deciding when you're not going to design for something than GM fiat is the most rampant thing in RPGs as there are way more things you are not diesigning then things you are. This would be the most all inclusive, and unavoidable, meaning you could possibly use.

Quote from: RandallS;566059I don't offer a social system, but I see no reason why I should not be involved in threads about designing social system -- arguing for allowing as much of the social system to be "GM decides" as possible.  "GM decides" is a rule after all. It may not be the type of rule those wanting everything codified so the GM does not have to decide want, but I have as much right to argue for what I want in social rules as those who want things all codified do. Not arguing for what I want in game rules means those who want something else get heard unopposed. Sorry, I am unwilling to concede the field just because those who disagree with me on the issue would rather I not be there.

The reason a respectful person wouldn't hop into a thread like that is because by making a thread about desiging a social system the people involved have already decided against just letting the GM decide and thus want rules covering some number of social interactions. There's nothing that you can offer the conversation on designing something if all you have to say is don't design it.

Quote from: MGuy;566060If you want to stretch the meaning of designing around GM fiat to mean deciding when you're not going to design for something than GM fiat is the most rampant thing in RPGs as there are way more things you are not diesigning then things you are. This would be the most all inclusive, and unavoidable, meaning you could possibly use.

By your own definition of gm fiat it occupies all areas not covered by rules, so therefore any area where I cpdecide to make no rule I am designing around GM fiat.

But more reasonably even if I dont have hard mechanics in such a place I am likely to offer guideines and advice on employing gm fiat to resolve situations so there is an actual handling of fiat as a concept there.

Quote from: MGuy;566061The reason a respectful person wouldn't hop into a thread like that is because by making a thread about desiging a social system the people involved have already decided against just letting the GM decide and thus want rules covering some number of social interactions. There's nothing that you can offer the conversation on designing something if all you have to say is don't design it.

Actually he could offer a lot of thoughts on pitfalls that social mechanics present and people might factor that into their design of social mechanics even if they don't accept his complete rejection of them. Beyond that, there are some soft social mechanics he might be able to suggest. For example while he may be opposed in principle to making any rolls that replace or overide the player speaking in character, he might be open to mechanics that inform his characters social interaction (social knowledge rolls so to speak).

Either way this thread is about Gm fiat and not social interaction rules...

Quote from: MGuy;566061The reason a respectful person wouldn't hop into a thread like that is because by making a thread about desiging a social system the people involved have already decided against just letting the GM decide and thus want rules covering some number of social interactions. There's nothing that you can offer the conversation on designing something if all you have to say is don't design it.

Let's say the designers of 5e start a thread on their ideas for social system for 5e. Those of us who do not want a rules-based one should just shut up and allow those who do want a rules-based social system to say what they want in the game because doing otherwise would be disrepectful?  Sorry, but if it is disrespectful to advocate for the type of game I want (and would be willing to buy) in such a thread, then I'm just going to be have to be considered disrespectful.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;566064By your own definition of gm fiat it occupies all areas not covered by rules, so therefore any area where I cpdecide to make no rule I am designing around GM fiat.

But more reasonably even if I dont have hard mechanics in such a place I am likely to offer guideines and advice on employing gm fiat to resolve situations so there is an actual handling of fiat as a concept there.

I haven't laid down my own definition of GM fiat. I consider GM fiat whenever the GM makes a decision about what happens in game. My definition includes tasks like saying there is a door, on the otherside of that door is an orc and a pie. I also consider it GM fiat when the GM decides to change or exclude rules and similar activities. Your definition is the all encompassing idea that everything not covered by the rules is GM fiat. Te color of my character's shoes is not covered by th rules but I as a player should damn well get a say in what color they are. I wouldn't consider that GM fiat. hat's more, your mentioning the rules as being guidelines doesn't counter anything I've said thus far.

Quote from: RandallS;566067Let's say the designers of 5e start a thread on their ideas for social system for 5e. Those of us who do not want a rules-based one should just shut up and allow those who do want a rules-based social system to say what they want in the game because doing otherwise would be disrepectful?  Sorry, but if it is disrespectful to advocate for the type of game I want (and would be willing to buy) in such a thread, then I'm just going to be have to be considered disrespectful.

Yes. If the 5E designers have elected to have a social system and you chime in saying that's not what you want then you are being disrespectful. If, on the otherhand, someone is asking whether or not a social system is wanted/necessary well then feel free to chime in.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;566065Actually he could offer a lot of thoughts on pitfalls that social mechanics present and people might factor that into their design of social mechanics even if they don't accept his complete rejection of them. Beyond that, there are some soft social mechanics he might be able to suggest. For example while he may be opposed in principle to making any rolls that replace or overide the player speaking in character, he might be open to mechanics that inform his characters social interaction (social knowledge rolls so to speak).

Either way this thread is about Gm fiat and not social interaction rules...

Offering potential pitfalls and problems that might arise from social systems or a given social system is not the same as telling people not to make one at all. If you want to get into the specifics about why having a social system framework is good or bad that is again another discussion.