GM fiat - an illustration

[Maxperson]

yeah whats the important difference between

“Dm decides goblin is eating ratonastick”
“Dm rolls on their goblin lunch table”
“gary gygax says goblins eat ratonastick”
“Module J4 room 37 says the goblins are eating ratonastick”

Here is the difference.

1) The module dictates the one and only thing that can happening. Highly limited.

2) The DM rolling on the lunch table had probably a few dozen possibilities, so there were a variety of things that could have happened. Limited, but nearly as limited as the module.

3) DM fiat means that the DM could decide that the goblin is eating a ratonastick, a turkey leg, is throwing the ratonastick at an underling, yells to the underling to go get him a turkey leg because the ratonastick tastes bad, or literally a million other things. Not limited at all. That the DM chose ratonastick doesn't mean that the method used is just the same as numbers 1 and 2. The method is still better.

4) Gygax is dead, so if he's telling my players that the goblin is eating a ratonastick, I'm getting an exorcist.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't care who you were responding to. I have an opinion on this subject and I'm giving it. As for not knowing how to explain it to me, I've already acknowledge at least once that the DM can do it.

I also don't get how you can fail to understand the difference between "can do" and "should not do." Is there some help I can give you in understanding that difference?

Can they do it? Yes. Should they do it? No. It's an abuse of DM authority to use fiat in that manner.

I wouldn't go that far. I don't think that the original example was in any way an abuse. All the participants seemed to be on board, and the GM was making his decision in good faith. That it's not how I would handle things doesn't make it wrong in some way.

It's odd how you're so worried about your style being labeled wrong in some way that you'd casually do exactly that to someone else.

 

[NN]

I see no meaningful difference between module writer fiat, game designer fiat, gm fiat, and gm fiats a table fiat.

 

[Maxperson]

I wouldn't go that far. I don't think that the original example was in any way an abuse. All the participants seemed to be on board, and the GM was making his decision in good faith. That it's not how I would handle things doesn't make it wrong in some way.

It's odd how you're so worried about your style being labeled wrong in some way that you'd casually do exactly that to someone else.

It's my opinion. If they are happy, they can and should play that way. I would walk out. Just like I would walk out of D&D game where everyone had to talk in Loony Tunes voices. Not my thing.

My view is that it's a DM abusing their authority and so I would leave. Just like I would view someone peeing on me as abuse. Some folks are into that, though, and good for them.

My viewing something as an abuse of authority is not the same as saying they are wrong for playing that way in THEIR game. Stop twisting my words into things that they are not. You've done that several times now in this thread.

 

[Maxperson]

I see no meaningful difference between module writer fiat, game designer fiat, gm fiat, and gm fiats a table fiat.

You are wrong. Whether you see it or not, there is in fact a difference in how the game plays if there is fiat and if there is not.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I agree.

Well, no. This comes from the strange idea that everyone must be equal in all things always, and the DM is "just a player in the game like all the other players". The reason to have limits in a game is to enhance the game.

No one has said that the GM must be limited in the same ways as the players. Again, this is you reading things into the comments that are not there.

But yes, the reason to have limits is to enhance the game.

The player in an RPG limits themselves to a single character with the basic goal of having an adventure through that character. This should be easy to understand as it is no fun, and there is no game even, if a player can just do anything. It's like round one of the game would just be the PC rules the multiverse.....and end game.

The DM does not have a character in the game though. The DM is the whole mutliverse of the game. Unlike the player, the DM has no personal stake in the game.

I would very much argue against the idea that the DM has no personal stake in the game. Based on what you've written above... where players have but one character and the DM an entire multiverse... I'd say that most DMs have far more at stake in the game than any player.

So what is there to limit? The thing I guess so many players want to take away from the DM is the power to hurt, harm, kill or do anything 'bad' to any character in anyway. And this is just ruining the game exactly like the above by making the character immortal. If nothing negative can happen to the characters, there is no game.

No, no one said that. Again... you ask the question, but then come up with your own answer that's a guess and which is way off. It has nothing to do with harm to the characters.

The reason I prefer limits on my authority as a GM is to let the results of play determine how things go. To not control the whole world so tightly. So that I can be surprised by what happens and I'm not just steering things the way I want or expect them to go. I also find that when I'm constrained as a GM, my creativity is put to the test much more.

As a player, I prefer that the GM be constrained in ways because I want my choices to matter. I don't want the GM to secretly be deciding the outcomes of everything. I want there to be an actual game of some sort going on. If the rules and game mechanics are subject to the GM's approval, then we could just not roll and have the GM tell us the story of what he thinks will happen.

Never said that.

Perhaps not directly, but all your guesses about how different games work are really flawed. Like your bit above about it being related to preventing harm to characters, which then destroys the game... no one is advocating for that. So why bring it up?

Depends on the game?

I said it was D&D. If you heard someone talking about coin flipping for a fireball result, you'd know that something was odd.

It is just a failure of comprehension

Yes, exactly.

 

[hawkeyefan]

My viewing something as an abuse of authority is not the same as saying they are wrong for playing that way in THEIR game. Stop twisting my words into things that they are not. You've done that several times now in this thread.

You said that they "should not do it". Now you've clarified that your preference is that any GM you play with would not do that.

I wasn't twisting anything.

 

[Maxperson]

You said that they "should not do it". Now you've clarified that your preference is that any GM you play with would not do that.

I wasn't twisting anything.

Is it possible for a DM to abuse their authority? According to your last few posts, it is not possible, because someone somewhere might enjoy that kind of play. I disagree with that position.

I can say that something is an abuse of authority, and say that DMs should not abuse their authority in that manner, while still allowing for some people to actually enjoy that kind of play and not badwrongfun them. If everyone is on board, then it ceases to be abuse AT THAT POINT, and not before.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Not really. Look at the avalanche and the giant. There are only so many outcomes. He could be killed, he could be hurt, he could escape unscathed. I assigned equal odds to each. Though I did adjust the hurt to being at one-third HP and unscathed to two-thirds HP because I wouldn't want to potentially negate the effort.

It is a fantasy world, that is made up, there could be unlimited consequences. Also, you arbitrarily decided that there are just two stages of hurt the giant can be, even though it probably has more than three HP! Why not include 1/8 HP gone, 1/4 HP gone etc? Why there is equal chance of every outcome? Couldn't some be more likely than others? Hell, here you decided by your choice of options that is more likely for the giant to survive than to perish. Is that plausible? Why is that any less of an arbitrary fiat than Max deciding that the giant has 100% (or close enough) chances of dying?

So what happens is up to the dice.

Within the parameters and odds of your choosing.

It would be illusory if say I didn't share any of this with the players, and said "roll a d6" and then whatever they rolled, I said "The giant is unhurt by the avalanche."

Setting stakes and calling for a roll... if that's illusory, then almost every move made in D&D is illusory.

What is illusory is the idea that you as GM are not making choices about the direction of the game. You are, even if the dice would be involved. Granted, most situations governed by rules in most games are more structured and limited than your coming up with "giant in avalanche" table out of nowhere. This is why I for example have advocated for D&D 5e to have more structure for skill use, such as example DCs. Because without such structure we are closer to the giant in avalanche situation.

 

[bloodtide]

Not really. Look at the avalanche and the giant. There are only so many outcomes. He could be killed, he could be hurt, he could escape unscathed. I assigned equal odds to each. Though I did adjust the hurt to being at one-third HP and unscathed to two-thirds HP because I wouldn't want to potentially negate the effort.

This is a good, big point. For any event/action/encounter you, just you, can only think or imagine of a limited number of outcomes. And that is on top of the outcomes you automatically don't like, dismiss or won't even think about for a second. And that is on top of the outcomes you might admit "might" happen, but at the same time come down hard on that they would be "so rare" as to never happen.

The end result is there are a huge number of outcomes you will not consider happening for one of the above reasons, and then a very small number you consider acceptable.

And so you have plenty of fun in a very limited game that only offers a very limited list of outcomes.

I would very much argue against the idea that the DM has no personal stake in the game. Based on what you've written above... where players have but one character and the DM an entire multiverse... I'd say that most DMs have far more at stake in the game than any player.

How? What personal stake can you see?

The reason I prefer limits on my authority as a GM is to let the results of play determine how things go. To not control the whole world so tightly. So that I can be surprised by what happens and I'm not just steering things the way I want or expect them to go. I also find that when I'm constrained as a GM, my creativity is put to the test much more.

I find it odd that you feel more creative when constrained and limited, but I can understand it. Many people like limits as they are very comforting.

I'm totally on the other side, of course. I see true creativity needs no limits what so ever. None. Ever.

As a player, I prefer that the GM be constrained in ways because I want my choices to matter. I don't want the GM to secretly be deciding the outcomes of everything. I want there to be an actual game of some sort going on. If the rules and game mechanics are subject to the GM's approval, then we could just not roll and have the GM tell us the story of what he thinks will happen.

This goes back to you want to play a RPG like a Board Game, not the unique game that it is.

Perhaps not directly, but all your guesses about how different games work are really flawed. Like your bit above about it being related to preventing harm to characters, which then destroys the game... no one is advocating for that. So why bring it up?

Well, guesses are not facts. A guess is just a random thought.