Quote from: MGuy;566081Yes. 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.

Sorry, but I would just have to be disrespectful by your standards. It would not be disrespectful by MY standards. When it comes to moral issues, my standards trump your standards for me.

Quote from: RandallS;566083Sorry, but I would just have to be disrespectful by your standards. It would not be disrespectful by MY standards. When it comes to moral issues, my standards trump your standards for me.

Not actually a "morals" issue more of a manners issue. But hey if you think telling people who decided to design something not to design something that's your choice. This is the internet after all people troll other people's threads all the time.

Quote from: MGuy;566079I 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.

I am just trying to stick with the issue of fiat as framed by the OP, which is entirely about whether we need a rule for everything or not if you look at the first post. We can debate the meaning of fiat, whether it is possible to design fiat or not, but ultimately the thread was about where we are in the state of game design in terms of what rules cover and if that is a good thing.

So I guess my point is I prefer games that leave plenty of room for human judgment in areas.

Quote from: MGuy;565721The thing is the system doesn't depend on this part to work. It's a "If we don't cover this thing make something up" clause.

But you see, the system does depend on this part to work. It's one of the core rules of the game. You assign one player as arbiter and get them to make rulings on things not covered in the rulebook. If you don't have a rule like this, then the game can't work as the designer intended.

Quote from: Glazer;566094But you see, the system does depend on this part to work. It's one of the core rules of the game. You assign one player as arbiter and get them to make rulings on things not covered in the rulebook. If you don't have a rule like this, then the game can't work as the designer intended.

You delivered an explanatin for there being a GM. Seeing as though I said if you have a GM at all then GM fiat is part of the game I don't see how this contradicts or alters anything i've said.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;566086I am just trying to stick with the issue of fiat as framed by the OP, which is entirely about whether we need a rule for everything or not if you look at the first post. We can debate the meaning of fiat, whether it is possible to design fiat or not, but ultimately the thread was about where we are in the state of game design in terms of what rules cover and if that is a good thing.

So I guess my point is I prefer games that leave plenty of room for human judgment in areas.

And my point has been "GM fiat has to be a part of the game because by having a GM, fiat is what he does". However, the OP also asks why such a thing is dismissed when talking about design. Well that's because when talking about design you have to talk about it devoid of fiat because a GM's fiat varies so wildly from table to table that you can't possibly consider or account for all the variations. What you can talk about are design goals and how to make those design goals happen if people use the rules you write.

Quote from: MGuy;566100And my point has been "GM fiat has to be a part of the game because by having a GM, fiat is what he does". However, the OP also asks why such a thing is dismissed when talking about design. Well that's because when talking about design you have to talk about it devoid of fiat because a GM's fiat varies so wildly from table to table that you can't possibly consider or account for all the variations. What you can talk about are design goals and how to make those design goals happen if people use the rules you write.

I think you are focusing too much on the concept of gm fiat. If you look at the OP his basic premise is whether its okay or desirable for games to not have mechanics for everything (and he offers social interaction as an example). He identifies this as as using GM fiat in place of mechanics. So the whole "gm fiat" debate you are making is well and good but just avoids discussion of the central issue which is: do we need a rule for everything?

My own answer to this is it depends on what you want to achieve. Personally I think games with fewer or no mechanics for stuff like social interaction encurage more direct interaction with the setting and heighten immerssion. I can play both kinds of systems and do. But when I return to games lacking social mechanics (or even mechanics for things like Detect) I am struck by how this impacts the play of the game (often in very good ways). So i think it is fair to say sometimes the most important decision designers make s when not to create mechanics trying to dismiss that as "non design" by deconstructing GM fiat seems a bit disengenuous to me. It is a bit like silence in music. Placing silence in important places is still composition.

I've heard of a GMless game before (forget the name) but such a game exists. However I believe it plays more like a boardgame than what one would consider a TTRPG. If the question of whether or not it's ok to not have any areas of obscurity in the game that would allow for people to use their own judgment/imaginations then those games exist but are, for the most part, not ttrpgs. If your game has a GM then GM fiat is a part of it. Its not that I'm concentrating on that its just that that is a simple fact. There's no two ways about it.

If the question is more whether or not having more rules is strictly "better" than having less, then that's a matter of taste. In my opinion there are soft limits on how concrete rules you can conceivably use for certain things can be and things which you can't have rules be too concrete without diminishing returns.
For Example:
Jump is pretty cut and dry. You have a distance you want to jump and you roll jump to see if you meet or exceed that distance. This is pretty cut and dry. There're not really any parts you need to interpret save for edge cases where gravity or physics are weird and it changes the dynamic of how jump is suppose to work. You don't make the check or the TN, or the the numbers when designing this with the expectation that people won't use them. Likewise when talking about including jump you also don't consisder how individual GMs might edit your numbers. You make numbers that work for you/what you want and move on.

Bluff on the other hand cannot be completely clear cut. You simply cannot account for every lie that will ever be told ever. You CAN give a flat "is truth"/"is not truth" roll that you make but that's unsatisfying and doesn't really encompass what you want Bluff to act like (or it may be "good enough" for you whatever). What most people do is add a bunch of modifiers to that simple roll to take into account how wild the lie is, whether or not you have "evidence", and whether or not someone gave a different lie. All of these rely on the GM making a call about what is or isn't a believable lie, what counts as proof, or whether or not there is another bluff going around.

Notice that adding modifiers doesn't depend on you guessing how GMs will use those modifiers, its merely a design aspect that you add to get the results you'd expect. You don't add those modifiers in with the thought that people won't use them and you also don't run the numbers with assumption that people will change those numbers.

I have met players that don't like gm's to have any actual power.

They seem to use the rules as a safety blanket or a way to control the game.

My theory is they simply have control issues.

I have always felt the gm needs to wield the power, but also darn well better be fair and use that power to make the game fun for everyone.




I never have played in a game with 'No gm' so I can't relate to that.

Quote from: Bill;566293I have met players that don't like gm's to have any actual power.

They seem to use the rules as a safety blanket or a way to control the game.

My theory is they simply have control issues.

I have always felt the gm needs to wield the power, but also darn well better be fair and use that power to make the game fun for everyone.




I never have played in a game with 'No gm' so I can't relate to that.

I GM most of the time and I can confirm that players like using the rules in order to empower themselves. Though I don't think that's a bad thing. I actually believe rules should empower the players.

Quote from: MGuy;566348I GM most of the time and I can confirm that players like using the rules in order to empower themselves. Though I don't think that's a bad thing. I actually believe rules should empower the players.

This varies greatly from group to group though. The important thing is for companies to recognize that some groups like everything codefied to protect against the bad gm (or empower players) but others like less codefication and more power on the GM side because of the style of play it produces. Neither one is good or bad they are just different. I have been in both kinds of groups and think there are strengths and weaknesses on either side. My own preference is for certain things to be more in the hands of the GM (for example social interaction) but once the dice are rolled I like consistency (big fan of let the dice fall where they may in this respect).

One thing that does irk me as a player are mechanics that give the players narrative control. I.e. Smething that allows them to spend points to place an item on the scene or alter the motives of an NPC. For my own enjoyment of the game it is very important that the environment (which includes npcs, monsters and physical geography) all stem from the GM.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;566356One thing that does irk me as a player are mechanics that give the players narrative control. I.e. Smething that allows them to spend points to place an item on the scene or alter the motives of an NPC. For my own enjoyment of the game it is very important that the environment (which includes npcs, monsters and physical geography) all stem from the GM.

I agree that the DM should have final say, but a good DM can have a lot of fun asking players to participate in that type of creation.  One game I really enjoyed as a DM involved every new NPC to have the players think up 'three things' about this character.  

They could describe a physical feature (a wicked scar), or a detail from his past (he has a child that he dotes upon); anything along those kinds of lines.  Certainly they could 'complicate' things, but as a DM, I enjoyed trying to 'reconcile' any issues and by-and-large, it made more interesting characters.  It also gave the PCs more 'attachment' to the setting.  

Of course, that wasn't 'codified' into the rules - it was an option that I explored with the firm understanding that I could take or leave their suggestions, or if it didn't work, stop at any point.  So it worked out well for that particular game...  

In general, I do like to 'empower' players to make choices.  I like my players to know the rules and have a sense of how to make 'effective' characters.  I don't need them to 'char-op' into unbeatable machines, but I want them to know the rules well enough to make characters that don't 'suck'.  For example, if a character wants to use a bow for their primary weapon, I expect them to figure out a way to be proficient in it's use - not to have a non-proficiency penalty and/or additional penalties for firing into melee - if they're at -8 with their 'primary weapon', there's no reason for anyone to adventure with them...  If they know the rules, they can use them in interesting and creative ways.  

In another thread about 10' poles and such, there's been a lot of talk about how flour (or other fine particles) can ignite in the air.  That's the type of thing that I'd really like rules for...  From real-world examples, 'confinement' is a requirement for a flour-dust explosion...  What does that mean in 'game-terms'?  Can a sack of flour provide enough concentration of dust to explode in a 10x10 room?  What about 20x20?  50x50?  It's not like a normal explosive, but I can see how it'd be easy to treat it as such...  Easier, anyways, than making up consistent rules.  But for players to know that it's possible (to even BE possible) the DM has to have a sense of how it will work...  Players constantly needing to explain to the DM that such things are possible in the real world, and then try to explain how they would work, then have those real results translated into game terms - these offer so many variables that the action can be game-breakingly effective or terrible...  

If it does 1d6 damage, it's really no better than Alchmeist's Fire.  If it does 10d6 damage to everyone in the room and covers any area, it's better than a Fireball...  Figuring that stuff out MIGHT be important to the game...  For me, consistency is the most important thing (both as a player and a DM), but I'd really like to have 'suggestions' for how to make it work...  Because I'm not a physicist.

Just keep in mind I am noy saying that GMs should have final say, I am saying I prefer when they do (a minot but important distinction in my mind).

My only concern about player input (and personally I am fine with players having input with things like character history) is stuff like wish lists really rubbed me the wrong way during 3E. I just found it very disruptive to my sense of how a setting works best. I don't want the sword +4 wrath of Arunius to be in the dragonhoarde because a player has a build that relies on it, I want it to be there because it makes sense for it to be there or luck of the draw (for instance a treasure table).

Quote from: MGuy;566348I GM most of the time and I can confirm that players like using the rules in order to empower themselves. Though I don't think that's a bad thing. I actually believe rules should empower the players.

Empowerment can be good or bad.

I was refering to players that try to take control of the game from the GM selfishly; not for the betterment of the game.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;566356This varies greatly from group to group though. The important thing is for companies to recognize that some groups like everything codefied to protect against the bad gm (or empower players) but others like less codefication and more power on the GM side because of the style of play it produces. Neither one is good or bad they are just different. I have been in both kinds of groups and think there are strengths and weaknesses on either side. My own preference is for certain things to be more in the hands of the GM (for example social interaction) but once the dice are rolled I like consistency (big fan of let the dice fall where they may in this respect).

One thing that does irk me as a player are mechanics that give the players narrative control. I.e. Smething that allows them to spend points to place an item on the scene or alter the motives of an NPC. For my own enjoyment of the game it is very important that the environment (which includes npcs, monsters and physical geography) all stem from the GM.

Definately agree about narrative control. If the gm does not have that, you don't really need a gm.

Besides, a good gm will pick up on what players want and try to work those things into the game.