Is DM fiat okay?

[Crothian]

Very simple, do you think DM fiat is okay? Discuss

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

What's to discuss? The DM has the final word, no questions. Fiat does not imply arbitrary or capricious.

Of course, any good DM will take into account the desires and opinions of his players before making a decision, but in the end he's the referee.

 

[Gold Roger]

Yepp.

 

[Shroomy]

I voted "No" (and I was first!), basically because I disagree with the unilateralism and sometimes arbitrariness that fiat entails. Now, I'm not saying that you need to slavishly follow the RAW, but since I believe that D&D is a collaborative game between the players and the DM, I think the players should be informed of deviations from the RAW and should give their consent. Basically, everyone should agree to the houserules and deviations up front; also, decisions made in-game should be as transparent as possible.

 

[Henry]

I think the players should be informed of deviations from the RAW and should give their consent.

Within reason, I agree with this. On the other hand, if there is a disagreement outside what the rules say, then I believe the DM should have final say. I also believe that, if the rule is not immediately apparent, the DM should rule on it, and the rule stands until AFTER the game session's over.

I also give the DM free reign to create whatever he wants to within confines of the game, whether it's an ancient flying castle, a new type of dragon, a world-shaking event, etc. even if there are no rules for it.

 

[Ambrus]

Although some amount of DM fiat is unavoidable in RPGs I voted no. In games I run or play I prefer to avoid resorting to DM fiat as much as is possible to resolve situations. Ignoring the possibilities for blatant and unfair abuse by petty megalomaniac DMs, DM fiat prevents (unless the players and DM have an uncanny synchronicity in their game styles) the players forming coherent plans or anticipating what might occur in the campaign. DMs resorting to DM fiat too often is the equivalent of them making up and using ad-hoc rules that the players can't read up on and utilize themselves. Without understanding how the rules work and what could reasonably be anticipated to occur in response to an action the players are forced, essentially, to stumble their way through the campaign. Without the ability to plan and an expectation that their well formed plans can be expected to work, PCs have little reason to bother trying to be creative. The result is a group of PCs who play through the campaign reactively rather than proactively. They ride the wave rather than trying to swim on their own.

A little DM fiat is okay when called for and largely unavoidable because the rules don't accommodate a particular circumstance, but resorting to it often makes a game seem random and, to me at least, frustrating for players who wish to be proactive. Being the DM doesn't make one exempt from following the rules.

 

[el-remmen]

I voted "yes" - mostly b/c I believe in just respectfully accepting what the GM says even if I don't agree with it*, but it really depends on how it is instituted.

Is DM fiat allowing for the villian to explain his masterplan before anyone gets to act? Then that is ok.

Is DM fiat disallowing some spell from working "just because", with no (or very lame) in-game explanation as to why? Then I don't think it is okay. And I am not saying the in-game explanation needs to be by the RAW - it just needs to be there.



*If this happens repeatedly, I might talk to the DM after or between sessions - and if it turns out it is just a conflict of play-style, I will find another game.

 

[Mallus]

Simple answer: yes.

I'd go so far as to say DM fiat is a core "essential" of the RPG experience (leaving aside the current trend in some indie RPG's towards more distributed narrative authority).

 

[Psion]

Definitely in the "that depends" boat.

Some DM intervention is conducive to creation of an enjoyable game.

OTOH, I think the DM needs to cater to the players' collective enjoyment and find that there needs to be some reasonable expectations about the way the game will run in the campaign.

 

[Shroomy]

Within reason, I agree with this. On the other hand, if there is a disagreement outside what the rules say, then I believe the DM should have final say. I also believe that, if the rule is not immediately apparent, the DM should rule on it, and the rule stands until AFTER the game session's over.

I agree. But I think a DM needs to back up his decision with good reasoning and willingness to listen to and discuss the situation with the players (maybe not during the course of the game, but afterwards). I don't think anyone wants to see DMs hide behind Rule 0 and make up stuff just because they can; conversely, you don't want to get bogged down with endless rule discussion.

I also give the DM free reign to create whatever he wants to within confines of the game, whether it's an ancient flying castle, a new type of dragon, a world-shaking event, etc. even if there are no rules for it.

I'm not sure I count this as fiat or not.