Is DM fiat okay?

[Felix]

Okay, I think we're zeroing in on the disconnect here.

I can't have imagined that there wasn't one; it helps to define the subject of discussion.

I don't really think of the DM's privilege as the only member of the table to play with his cards in his hand, rather than on the table, to be an example of DM fiat.

It can be if the players are questioning his cards, and the DM says, "Quit questioning me about what I'm holding, get back to the game." This is problematic when the players think the DM is changing his cards to counter what the players have but he actually isn't.

If you disallow this kind of DM Fiat, then the only way for the players to make sure the DM is "playing fiar", is to force the DM to reveal his hand.

Essentially, the way I read it, DM fiat is when you break from the ability to honestly show your DM's notes to a player for checking. Not that I think any DM should have to. But an indepenent observer should be able to ask you the question "why didn't his diplomacy check work," and get an answer that would satisfy a reasonable player.

Yes, the DM should have a reasonable explanation for why his NPCs do the things they do. And I agree that no DM should have to show his notes to the players; I find the notion of players auditing the DM offensive. So in this regard, a DM using Fiat to say, "I have a reason, so back off; who's turn is it?" is perfectly acceptable.

DM Fiat to say, "I am unclear as to this particular rule I didn't expect, so I'm going to rule it this way for now, and decide after the game what we'll do for now on." is also perfectly reasonable.

EDIT

Schweeet! 2000 posts!

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Sure. But stating that people are having problems because all people suffer from a reverse video-game effect as a fact tends to generate... unpleasantness.

And requires evidential support.

 

[Corsair]

I would consider DM fiat to be if the DM were to be altering his cards depending on what he saw in the players' hands, if he didn't like the way things were looking to go.


The reason you don't second-guess the DM is because you trust him not to be altering his cards, because you believe he's playing by the rules. If the DM is exercising fiat, you don't know whether he's playing by the rules or not, and may be justified in second-guessing him.


Essentially, the way I read it, DM fiat is when you break from the ability to honestly show your DM's notes to a player for checking. Not that I think any DM should have to. But an indepenent observer should be able to ask you the question "why didn't his diplomacy check work," and get an answer that would satisfy a reasonable player.

Answer: Because it makes the game more fun.

I like Mutants and Masterminds approach to GM Fiat. When the GM wants to, he can handwave whatever he wants, but the players get hero points. This gives the players some minor compensation, but officially recognizes that Gm Fiat is necessary for a fun and compelling game.

 

[Mallus]

I like Mutants and Masterminds approach to GM Fiat. When the GM wants to, he can handwave whatever he wants, but the players get hero points. This gives the players some minor compensation, but officially recognizes that Gm Fiat is necessary for a fun and compelling game.

It's an elegant little rule, isn't it?

Of course, it still requires a GM with good judgement, which gets to the heart of the matter; no rule system is going to make a GM with poor judgement into a good GM, without reducing RPG's into --inherently adversarial-- boardgames.

Want to play a good game without DM Fiat? To quote the WOPR... how about a nice game of chess?

 

[RedWick]

Fiat is only a problem if you don't trust your GM.

 

[LostSoul]

There's nothing wrong with it, if that's your thing.

I don't like it for a bunch of reasons:

On the player side, I want to have (probably more than normal) input on what happens.

I want the DM to try his hardest to kill my PC. I don't want him to pull any punches. When (if) I survive, then I can enjoy it.


On the DM side, I want the players to have more input in the game. And I don't want to pull any punches.

I'm less comfortable with DM fiat when I'm the DM than when I'm a player.

 

[Endur]

It depends on what you mean by fiat.

If you mean that the Dm is the "decider", then yes the DM decides.

 

[Mark CMG]

Well, since a DM cannot have absolutely everything decided about any environment in advance, and since randomness of the dice is by no means always the best thing for DM or players (even when the possible options the dice are keyed to are chosen by the DM or players), some things must be handle by DM fiat*, as a matter of course.


*Where "fiat" means "an arbitrary decision" and "arbitrary" means "chosen or determined according to the personal desires or wishes" of the DM.

 

[Ranes]

Course it is. Daft question.

 

[Odhanan]

Very simple, do you think DM fiat is okay? Discuss

Of course it's okay as a principle. Now, in practice, that really depends what kind of DM you have and how decent the person is at DMing, really.