GM fiat - an illustration

[Maxperson]

Note that "the GM makes a ruling" is almost always in fact synonymous with "the GM fiat's the response."

Not if it falls within the rules. Fiat doesn't happen unless the DM steps outside of the rules, and I don't see why that would happen with the camera scenario.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Not if it falls within the rules. Fiat doesn't happen unless the DM steps outside of the rules, and I don't see why that would happen with the camera scenario.

That might not be a situation the rules cover. A lot of games don't tell you what to do if the players ask if something got caught on tape by a security camera (I would even say it is probably better that they don't). So the GM might have to decide or invent a rule

 

[FrogReaver]

Most fiat is principled, you just need to find out what the principle is.
Four somewhat common principles:


Ask what would be there, if indeterminate then decide yes and think about what clues it could offer.

Ask what would be there, if indeterminate then nothing that actively harms or helps, so nothing.

Make something be there that hits a flag (the cameras reveal it was one of the characters lovers), unless this overloads the pacing.

Have something be there but it's another clue that leads to the next clue in the sequence (roads to Rome).

IMO. It's not fiat if it's principled. Fiat requires arbitrariness.

*In case it's not clear by the like, i basically agree with the rest.

 

[darkbard]

Okay that was helpful as @darkbard asks the question that my initial post touched on - turned-based play.

Have I forgotten asking a question in this thread? I though my modest contribution so far was limited to providing a couple of working definitions.

 

[Autumnal]

I dunno I find trying to define fiat removes the ineffable magic of it

It’s time to eff the ineffable!

 

[FrogReaver]

Would you all classify the GM Pre-Authoring the elements of a mystery (characters, facts, etc) as a game mechanic? I would, but I'm anticipating quite a few differing opinions.

 

[Maxperson]

IMO. It's not fiat if it's principled. Fiat requires arbitrariness.

*In case it's not clear by the like, i basically agree with the rest.

I don't agree with that. Arbitrary is random selection or a whim. Fiat is probably the last thing you want to be arbitrary. In my experience, DMs give thought to their uses of fiat.

 

[zakael19]

Not if it falls within the rules. Fiat doesn't happen unless the DM steps outside of the rules, and I don't see why that would happen with the camera scenario.

My understanding of "ruling" as a commonly used word in both OSR and like D&D is that it's the DM making a decision on how to handle a situation where either a) the explicit rules and procedures do not cover it or b) when people are not sure and we want to avoid wasting time on looking stuff up.

Or does the infamous tagline of "ruling not rules" somehow also mean "ruling within the rules, but not covered by the rules, so kinda like different rules for the situation?"

 

[Maxperson]

My understanding of "ruling" as a commonly used word in both OSR and like D&D is that it's the DM making a decision on how to handle a situation where either a) the explicit rules and procedures do not cover it or b) when people are not sure and we want to avoid wasting time on looking stuff up.

Or does the infamous tagline of "ruling not rules" somehow also mean "ruling within the rules, but not covered by the rules, so kinda like different rules for the situation?"

Yes, but in the context that it was being used, it really wasn't a ruling that was being discussed. It was a DM decision. What happens after the player look for cameras generally falls within the rules.

You are correct about how ruling is typically used, though.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

In my replies to you, and in my posts more generally, I have repeatedly emphasised constraints that govern how fiction is established, and that permits inference.

I don't know why you have interpreted that as advocacy of unconstrained permissions.

It was not clear to me which things were referring to which things, so when I see some things saying genre conventions are what permits player and GM engagement with the fiction, and then other times saying that the fiction is what permits or doesn't permit problematic behavior. That sounded, to me, like leaving open this massive gap with little more than "well procedure will take care of that, so it isn't a problem." Hence why I asked about it, repeatedly.