Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5698161" data-attributes="member: 4937">Sorry.  Pet peeve of mine.  I really dislike polls that are worded in such a way that they try to tell you what to think about the answer.  I know you were probably just trying to make your poll wording exciting, but it really reduces the value of the poll as data because you aren't sure from an answer what agreement or disagreement you intended to measure.  You clearly didn't do it deliberately, but a lot of poll designers do deliberately do this in order to engineer the answers that they want.Take for example:"I am GOD and what I say goes, DM-fiat is the way to go!"Break it down as follows:A = I am God!B = What I say goes!C = DM-fiat is the way to go!Now, I can agree or disagree with this statement in many combinations.  A doesn't imply or require B or C, and C doesn't imply or require acceptance of A or B.  So someone might look at this and think 'A, B, C' and someone might think 'Not A, Not B, C'.   Depending on how the person weights their agreement or disagreement with "I am God!" and "DM-fiat is the way to go!", they might decide not to choose this even though they agree, "DM-fiat is the way to go!"  This is particularly true because, "The DM is God!" and "What I say goes!" are particularly provocative claims where a person's acceptance or lack of acceptance of the statements depends in no small part on the emotions such statements engender in the reader.And what's worse, what you are nominally trying to measure is the acceptance of "I prefer to use house rules", a proposition that appears no where in the selection.   A person might accept the proposition "I prefer to use house rules", while rejecting all of the propositions "The DM is God!", "What I say goes!" and "DM fiat is the way to go!".   In fact, I'm particularly cognizant of this failing of the poll, because by and large I fall into this category. I understood.  That would be a pretty extreme form of DM fiat, but its hardly required for fiat to be present. Err... I don't know how to answer that.  In legal terminology, fiat is an arbitrary decree or pronouncement by someone having the authority to decide and enforce the law.  Here, they are arbitrary in the sense that the rules are hitherto silent in the matter and so there can be no knowing what the law is until the authority has spoken.  In the extreme case, that of authoritarianism, the law is always effectively silent because the ruler or rulers has the power to change the law at any time and for any reason.  However, you don't have to be an extreme to be 'fiat', and I dare say that limiting the discussion solely to the extreme would be non-productive, sense the extreme is likely to be so rare that arguing from such would probably constitute a straw man.Fiat is very closely associated with the notion of 'discretion'.  That is to say, to the extent that the arbitrer has freedom to interpret the law or to decide when or how the law applies, or to issue exception, then you have fiat.Yes, as I said, by fiat.  The question is not whether some amount of dm fiat is involved, but to what degree.  The RAW's silence on the matter leaves much room for fiat.  Because the law is silent on the matter, it leaves much room for "rules lawyers" to go before the arbitrator and plead the case for the interpretation that they prefer.   Hense, house rules often elimentate the need for DM fiat, and the tendency towards rules lawyering that comes with it.  Technically, you could run an RPG entirely without fiat simply by ruling that nothing not covered by the rules was permitted and having rules that handled valid propositions in all valid game states.  Some would argue that this would turn the game into something of a board game, as this absence of fiat is typically a feature associated with board games.  No one has to ask for a fiat ruling when playing chess or checkers where the rules and acceptable propositions for every possible game state are covered.Which is what I was trying to point out when I talked about all the different meanings 'RAW' and 'house rules' might carry for someone.  Again, this allows your poll to be read in many different ways.I'll take your word for it, but I will say that in my experience most people who have experienced this aren't aware that they are experiencing it.  It's only when their group incorporates a new player, or when they change groups, or in particular when you form a new group from wholly inexperienced players that you really get to observe how hidebound by their expectations of play experienced players can be.   Including of course, you own.</blockquote>

Verification