The Lumpley Principle, Take 2
In this thread on Matt Snyder's blog, there is a discussion on "GM Fiat", and player authority in the game. This post will reply to some of the points there, regarding "GM Fiat" and who actually has authority in the game.

Theory wonks, read on.


Let's start with the Lumpley Principle, that "System (including but not limited to 'the rules') is defined as the means by which the group agrees to imagined events during play." A key part of this is that System is the means used during play, not the means stated in the rulebook (if there is one). Following the dictum that "no battle plan survives contact with the enemy", no set of rules survives contact with the play group. This means that the actual System is informally negotiated amongst the game's players, no matter what the game text says. The best that the game author can hope for is to set the terms of that negotiation and influence its course. This can be a powerful influence, but the players at the table have the final word.

Practically, what this means is that the social dynamics of the play group trump the written game text. D20 is often touted as an example of a game that is driven by GM fiat. Yet I've seen D20 games where the titular GM had authority over virtually nothing to do with interpretations of the mechanics, and these issues were negotiated among the other players at the table with no input from the GM. True to form, after the players had made their decision, the GM rubber-stamped it. But the real power was with the players. Dogs in the Vineyard is often touted as an example of a game that has strong rules to assure that each player gets authorial input. Yet I know of a Dogs session where one of the players had virtually no input at all, because of the social dynamics of the gaming group. 'The rules' said that this player had the right to frame their own conflicts...but some of the other players bulldozed through that shit.

No rules text in the world can stop bullies from being bullies, and no rules text in the world can stop timid players from being timid. Overcoming the players' Beliefs, Instincts, and Traits is easier said than done.

The first implication of all this is that "GM Fiat" is no such thing, unless that's the agreement that the players negotiate. Even then, the GM power to decree may be absolute in theory, but it never is in practice --- the players always have more power than this. Typically, much more power...though in the presence of bullies, all bets are off.

"GM fiat" theoretically represents a System where the gamemaster has unlimited power, but actually represents a myriad of underlying Systems. Attempting to analyze play of such Systems according to the theoretical System rather than the actual System cannot hope to have any degree of accuracy. Any analysis of such systems must account for all of the actual Systems represented. Yet there is continual synecdoche on this issue, mistaking certain dysfunctional forms of these Systems as representative of the whole. “GM fiat” systems often give their players little help in creating a functional System, but that does not mean that they can be pigeonholed as they so often are.

I propose a thought experiment. Imagine you are in a “GM fiat” game entering its fifth session. At the beginning of the session, the gamemaster says “Oops, sorry, guys. I just rolled a Force 5 Hurricane on the weather chart and you all die. Let’s roll up some new characters. I think you should all be elves this time.” If the players are truly powerless in the game and the GM is all-powerful, then you all must take the abuse and roll up new characters. But the fact is, you’ll probably leave the game, or convince the GM to give way. Your ability to walk from the game gives you power, and you don’t have to sit there and take this abuse.

It’s the players’ ability to walk from the game that gives them power in any game. Imagine a game of Primetime Adventures where all the players show up and then the Director turns up the Metallica to 120 decibels and yells into their ears “I’ve decided that our game tonight will be a TV series about giant furry Martian spiders…study this map.” The only thing that gives the players power to deal with this high-handed behavior is their ability to walk from the game. In fact, no one at the table has any power that doesn’t have its basis in their ability to walk from the game. "GM fiat" is a myth: it is simply the gamemaster exercising his prerogative to walk away from the gaming table if what happens there doesn't suit him --- a power which all of the players have. It is not a power unique to the gamemaster.

Now, what can be said about some of the “GM fiat” games is that the game text discourages the players from using this power. This in no way changes the fact that the players actually have that power. To believe so is to vastly overestimate the power of the game text. The ADRPG text practically screams at the players, telling them not to use this power and to let the GM walk all over them. This is just one of the reasons it is widely scoffed at by many of the actual players.

The implication for game design is that the game text is limited in its ability to combat dysfunction (for several reasons, only two of which will I mention here). In brief, its power is limited to specifying some aspects of a baseline System. In cannot specify the actual System to be used by the players, it can only be a baseline System from which the players will create their own System. Secondly, any actual System consists of a very large number of actual rules. Any game text must choose to focus on a small subset of these rules, yet all of them are important. For instance, Dogs in the Vineyard does not contain any text that states "don't shout down the other players." Nor should it; that's not a good use of the limited game text. Given the finite nature of the game text, the play group will be left on its own to fill in a large number of informal rules. Sometimes the rules they build will include "don't shout down the other players," sometimes they will include "shouting down the other players is acceptable." These rules don't even have to be created until they come into play (and they typically aren't).