GM fiat - an illustration

[hawkeyefan]

You aren't listening. What he says he does and what he does are not always the same. It took me a while to learn that, and it makes it really hard to figure out how he really does things.

You don't have to go through the effort to figure out what he really means, but you also should not be assuming the worst now that you know.

I only know what he does based on what he says. I'm not privy to his actual play. Based on what he says here, he is absolutely unconcerned with player agency and considers the DM to be totally without restriction in play.

That's not something I'd want to say isn't far off from my game. But that's just me... it's all a matter of preference.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't think GM fiat reduces player agency if the GM is fair.

Right, but this is why questions of "what is fair" were raised. Within the rules of play and what is acceptable for the DM, 5e allows for a lot of stuff that people here would consider unfair.

Doesn't that seem odd?

If by saying "Idea #324 is not possible given the current state of affairs in the setting" I don't see that as limiting the players very much as the whole point is to adventure in a particular setting.

There should of course be limits on what players can do based on the circumstances of play.

I personally think there should also be limits on the GM, as well.

I do believe in the absolute adherence to rule 0. I also believe a DM should be upfront, fair, and striving for the fun of the game. In effect, he should use his power in a benevolent way and many do. Some don't. Those are bad DMs.

For me, I suppose it depends on what you mean by rule 0. If it's saying that barring clear rules, or when an interpretation is needed, the DM is the final arbiter of rules... that's one thing. If it's some carte blanche permission for the DM to alter anything they want, then I'd like it to die in a fire.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't think GM fiat reduces player agency if the GM is fair.

This is 100% correct. DM fiat and player agency are separate things, though fiat can be misused to override agency.

I do believe in the absolute adherence to rule 0. I also believe a DM should be upfront, fair, and striving for the fun of the game. In effect, he should use his power in a benevolent way and many do. Some don't. Those are bad DMs.

This.

 

[Maxperson]

I only know what he does based on what he says.

Right. Which now for the third time I'm explaining to you. He says conflicting things. He says what he thinks he does, "I railroad players all the time." and then he says what he does in game play with examples or clarifications. The latter quite often contradict or negate the former.

He did it with you here when he clarified that he wasn't saying that he knew better than the designers.

I'm not privy to his actual play. Based on what he says here, he is absolutely unconcerned with player agency and considers the DM to be totally without restriction in play.

And I've seen him give different play examples that show differently. It's confusing as hell, and I generally don't bother to try and figure out what he really means, but I also don't just assume that the extreme things he posts are how he does it, either.

I've seen him clarify things to a more reasonable level too often to assume the worst. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It depends.

Of course a GM will need to make up new information during play. That's a requirement in most games, even heavily prepped adventure path style games. It's more about what needs to be made up, how much needs to be made up, what may be left to the dice or other processes, and how that impacts play.

The Alarm spell example shows how so many points of GM fiat in the process can essentially bypass the spell. It's illustrative of a potential problem in the wider design of the game and how it relates to player agency.

If player agency isn't a concern, then sure... who cares? But if it is, it's something to be aware of.

I would say that is why fairies and impartiality are important

 

[hawkeyefan]

Right. Which now for the third time I'm explaining to you. He says conflicting things. He says what he thinks he does, "I railroad players all the time." and then he says what he does in game play with examples or clarifications. The latter quite often contradict or negate the former.

He did it with you here when he clarified that he wasn't saying that he knew better than the designers.

This is what he said about knowing better than everyone else:

Well, "knows better" does not really fit.

But sure I utterly don't care about anything any fool had printed in a book. If I like it I might use it, if not I will flick the book off the table and laugh. I sure don't put "the designers" on some pedestal and think every typed word is sacrosanct.

And I have never cared about what all the other GMs or think.

And I don't agree with many players, and sure don't think that I "work for them" as their personal DM.

This to me reads exactly like someone who thinks they know better than anyone else.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I would say that is why fairies and impartiality are important

Right, but what's fair? Is it simply "per the rules"? Or is it something else?

If it's something else, how do we determine what's fair?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Right, but what's fair? Is it simply "per the rules"? Or is it something else?

If it's something else, how do we determine what's fair?

No, i think it needs to be a set of principles. I don't know that you can have one set of principles for everyone because ideas of fairness will not be uniform. But this is part of finding the right group, the right GM for you. Any game will not be fun if the chemistry is wrong. I have friends I wouldn't play Clue or Monopoly with, not because of anything teh game does but because of the spirit they bring to play. I think with GMs a lot of times it comes down to the spirit they bring to the game. But the things I mentioned can make a very big difference. I'd saw lowering the ego is a pretty handy thing for a GM to know how to do. You need to be confident enough to run something, but you need to be able to admit when you made a bad call (and learn from bad calls)

 

[Maxperson]

This is what he said about knowing better than everyone else:


This to me reads exactly like someone who thinks they know better than anyone else.

It's not worth arguing with you over. You go ahead and assume stuff about him, despite it being clarified to you multiple times.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Right, but this is why questions of "what is fair" were raised. Within the rules of play and what is acceptable for the DM, 5e allows for a lot of stuff that people here would consider unfair.

Doesn't that seem odd?

Not really, because people get to make their own choices. That means that sometimes they will make choice you do not like for one reason or another. Goes with the territory. I'd rather suffer through the occasional unfairness than be constrained in what choices can be made at all.