GM fiat - an illustration

[Maxperson]

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.

5.5e is even worse when it comes to helping DMs understand how to run skills.

 

[aramis erak]

It is in doubt until...

1. Someone invokes a mechanical resolution
2. the GM makes a decision by fiat

Fiat resolution is ending doubt by personal choice of the individual with the authority to use their own judgement rather than predefined mechanics.

It's using a tool in a horribly wrong fashion. Fiat isn't meant to determine uncertainty. I can tell you with absolute certainty, that if a DM abused his authority like that, I'd walk out of that game on the spot.

No, it's not. it's the default operation of traditional play.
Is that door locked? Either the GM invokes a rule (either game or module specific) (perhaps the module says it's locked, or there's a roll specified), or the GM decides. That's a routine base level fiat decision. The average session has dozens of such things.

If the player is playing a storygame-side RPG, they can simply narrate the door's state if the GM didn't frame it clearly. In AW, MASHed, or Sentinel Comics, that's within player scope of authority to do.

Player actions attempted are player fiat... unless compelled by rules (Morale, Sanity, resisting compulsions magical or disad based).

Last month I ran the Classic Traveller module Shadows - doors have a roll for state (locked or unlocked) at time of player entry. That they are closed is a default for the module - so that module has two in-module rules for the doors. It doesn't tell you which side of the room animal encounters are from in most rooms... but the combat's pretty crunchy, so that does matter; deciding which part of the room they're in is a fiat decision. That the atmosphere is a dense corrosive is established in the module based upon the world stats; that it lowers terminal velocity was a fiat call. that the gravity is roughly 8m/s² is implied by the world size. That the fall 2 PCs took was past an offset in the shaft due to tectonic damage is in the book... that I had them roll to catch it was a fiat call derived from the fiction - I knew where the fell from and which direction was the shift. One rolled really bad - I had them roll the damage when they failed, and it killed them outright (even after I allowed taking damage to Int in addition to the Str + Dex + End that usually do — that was a fiat call, based in an expansion rule from Traveller's Digest. How it killed was in doubt. there is no hit location in canonical CT, So the location was determined by my prior rules call (It sucks to kill a PC in the first 15 minutes of the adventure), so I declared it was a head hit, shearing the helmet off. The other guy made his roll... and his damage roll was low, but did drop one att to 0. Based upon that, by fiat I described him as starfish-landing...

It's just normal play for the gm to create details by fiat, but still grounded in the fiction.

 

[Maxperson]

No, it's not. it's the default operation of traditional play.
Is that door locked? Either the GM invokes a rule (either game or module specific) (perhaps the module says it's locked, or there's a roll specified), or the GM decides. That's a routine base level fiat decision. The average session has dozens of such things.

Yes, but those are examples of things NOT in doubt, not things that are in doubt that are decided by fiat. If the players ask me if the door is locked, and I say yes, there was never a chance that it wasn't.

If the player is playing a storygame-side RPG, they can simply narrate the door's state if the GM didn't frame it clearly. In AW, MASHed, or Sentinel Comics, that's within player scope of authority to do.

Player actions attempted are player fiat... unless compelled by rules (Morale, Sanity, resisting compulsions magical or disad based).

Last month I ran the Classic Traveller module Shadows - doors have a roll for state (locked or unlocked) at time of player entry. That they are closed is a default for the module - so that module has two in-module rules for the doors. It doesn't tell you which side of the room animal encounters are from in most rooms... but the combat's pretty crunchy, so that does matter; deciding which part of the room they're in is a fiat decision. That the atmosphere is a dense corrosive is established in the module based upon the world stats; that it lowers terminal velocity was a fiat call. that the gravity is roughly 8m/s² is implied by the world size. That the fall 2 PCs took was past an offset in the shaft due to tectonic damage is in the book... that I had them roll to catch it was a fiat call derived from the fiction - I knew where the fell from and which direction was the shift. One rolled really bad - I had them roll the damage when they failed, and it killed them outright (even after I allowed taking damage to Int in addition to the Str + Dex + End that usually do — that was a fiat call, based in an expansion rule from Traveller's Digest. How it killed was in doubt. there is no hit location in canonical CT, So the location was determined by my prior rules call (It sucks to kill a PC in the first 15 minutes of the adventure), so I declared it was a head hit, shearing the helmet off. The other guy made his roll... and his damage roll was low, but did drop one att to 0. Based upon that, by fiat I described him as starfish-landing...

It's just normal play for the gm to create details by fiat, but still grounded in the fiction.

Where is there a situation where the result was uncertain, and you decided the result by fiat? If you had instead of having them roll to catch the offset(an outcome that was uncertain) you had simply decided by fiat one of them caught it and the other did not, THAT would be an example of what I'm talking about here.

Your standard fiat examples above are apples to my oranges.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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?


Within the parameters and odds of your choosing.



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.

I never claimed that a GM doesn't have influence on how the game goes. Of course they do. So do the players.

Why I like to use a resolution system other than fiat to determine the outcome of uncertain events is to limit the amount of direction the GM can dictate. Not to remove it, but to place a reasonable limit on it.

Again, to go back to the original example... the structure of Torchbearer and the Aetherial Premonition helps to maintain player action declaration. The Alarm spell of 5E D&D, combined with its use of GM Fiat, can totally bypass the use of the spell.

Many people seem to say that a DM who chooses to use fiat to bypass the spell is abusing their authority or otherwise "being a jerk" and so on. If that's the case, then why the resistance to a system that doesn't support that? Why defend a fuzzy incomplete rules set that allows such "abuse"?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I never claimed that a GM doesn't have influence on how the game goes. Of course they do. So do the players.

Why I like to use a resolution system other than fiat to determine the outcome of uncertain events is to limit the amount of direction the GM can dictate. Not to remove it, but to place a reasonable limit on it.

Again, to go back to the original example... the structure of Torchbearer and the Aetherial Premonition helps to maintain player action declaration. The Alarm spell of 5E D&D, combined with its use of GM Fiat, can totally bypass the use of the spell.

Many people seem to say that a DM who chooses to use fiat to bypass the spell is abusing their authority or otherwise "being a jerk" and so on. If that's the case, then why the resistance to a system that doesn't support that? Why defend a fuzzy incomplete rules set that allows such "abuse"?

Because for some folks, the answer to, "some people may abuse their authority" isn't, "make sure the rules keep them from having that authority". That solution removes the idea of personal judgement and assumes bad behavior will necessarily follow from the mere capacity to exhibit bad behavior.

To me, that is a depressing philosophy indeed.

 

[Maxperson]

Because for some folks, the answer to, "some people may abuse their authority" isn't, "make sure the rules keep them from having that authority". That solution removes the idea of personal judgement and assumes bad behavior will necessarily follow from the mere capacity to exhibit bad behavior.

To me, that is a depressing philosophy indeed.

Yeah. Rules should not be designed to try and stop bad DMs(or bad players). You can't do it with rules, and all you do is hamper the good ones.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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 don't think there are, generally speaking, that many potential outcomes as you and others are stating.

How? What personal stake can you see?

Their sense of ownership on the world, the NPCs, the stories and events they've created. I'm sure you view your campaign world as YOUR WORLD, right?

You've advocated for heavy prep and long hours in between sessions where you work on the game and all the details and information you consider necessary to play.

Are you going to say to me that doesn't create stakes for you as the GM in play?

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.

No, it's not about comfort. Quite the opposite. Being able to do whatever you want whenever you want without restriction... what could be more comforting than that?

No... it's about challenging myself and my creativity to handle things I wasn't expecting and didn't plan for and about which I can't just do anything I want.

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

No, again this is the kind of comment you make that shows you don't understand how these games work. They are not like boardgames.

Most of the games I run and play these days are far more flexible than D&D, allowing for all kinds of things to happen.

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

Sure... but your guesses are very far off the mark. Maybe stop guessing and as you said to me earlier in the thread, ask pointed questions.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Because for some folks, the answer to, "some people may abuse their authority" isn't, "make sure the rules keep them from having that authority". That solution removes the idea of personal judgement and assumes bad behavior will necessarily follow from the mere capacity to exhibit bad behavior.

To me, that is a depressing philosophy indeed.

I would disagree on two items. First, it does not remove the idea of personal judgment. I mean... I'm responding to @Crimson Longinus about exactly that. The personal judgment of the GM is not absent, it's just used in areas other than the resolution of actions with uncertain outcomes.

Second, it's not about preventing abuse so much as it is about creating a complete set of rules. Why leave room for error if you can create a system that doesn't leave room for error? Also, I don't think that it needs to be about "abuse" or "bad behavior" so much as conflicting ideas or a bad judgment call.

As a GM I've made plenty of poor judgment calls over the years. Especially in my earlier days. The more room for error a system has, the more likely I'd make such a poor call. These poor calls aren't done out of some sense of maliciousness. They're not about abusing power.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I would disagree on two items. First, it does not remove the idea of personal judgment. I mean... I'm responding to @Crimson Longinus about exactly that. The personal judgment of the GM is not absent, it's just used in areas other than the resolution of actions with uncertain outcomes.

Second, it's not about preventing abuse so much as it is about creating a complete set of rules. Why leave room for error if you can create a system that doesn't leave room for error? Also, I don't think that it needs to be about "abuse" or "bad behavior" so much as conflicting ideas or a bad judgment call.

As a GM I've made plenty of poor judgment calls over the years. Especially in my earlier days. The more room for error a system has, the more likely I'd make such a poor call. These poor calls aren't done out of some sense of maliciousness. They're not about abusing power.

Either way, they are constraining choice, which leads to good *and^ bad results in aggregate. I would rather accept the possibility of the occasional bad judgement (from me or others) if it means I can make rulings on uncertain outcomes when needed or desired.

 

[NN]

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.

You are wrong. You are hallucinating a difference that isnt there.