Is DM fiat okay?

[Felix]

In D&D, you need fiat in order to resolve most siuations that don't invovle combat.

Or to resolve combat encounters when there is a disagreement on how the rules should work.

Player 1: My character does X.
Player 2: Can he do X?
DM: I don't think you can do X.
Player 1: I sure can do X, it's on page xx of the [Book].
Player 2: You've read that incorrectly, it doesn't allow X, it allows Y.
DM: Look, for the moment, you can't do X, if you want to do Y, do Y, but decide what you want to do for your turn and we'll discuss this after the session is over. [DM Fiat]

This is a proper application of DM fiat to allow for speedier game play. Unfortunately, because we don't have a single definition of DM Fiat to discuss, it's likley we're talking about many different kinds of DM Fiat. Meaning that it would be easier if we all had the same starting point. *cough*cough*

There's a certain irony in the fact that GURPS and HERO, the most complex and rules-heavy games on my shelf, are also the ones that give GMs the most lattitude to wholly ignore the rules at the drop of a hat.

Likely because a rules-heavy system will require large amounts of stoppage time to discern from the rules what a particular person can and cannot do. It is probable that DM Fiat, ie, the lattitude to ignore the rules, was written in to the system for game-play purposes. I see little irony here.

We haven't yet decided what we mean by fiat, and different people are obviously using different definitions. The degree of fiat acceptable, once we have a fixed definition, is not something that is taken into account by the yes/no question.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Crothian, would you please supply us your definition of DM fiat. This is like discussing methods of hunting the snark without knowing what the hell a snark is.

 

[Mallus]

1. Do you think your definition of fiat, as expressed in the context of the above quote, is the only definition present among the participants of this thread?

No. But my defintion did stress what I thought was an important aspect: the idea that some DM fiat is used to allow for more, and more interesting, play options, ie, for the player's benefit.

You're suggesting that this position represents a total disdain for arbitrary rulings, in favour of a completely rule-determined game, equating that with the "no" option, and then delaring the "no" option to be nonsensical. I'd say that's a straw man.

What I was suggesting was that some amount of fiat was integral to D&D, and by extension, any RPG structured similiarly. Without it, you end up with a boardgame. In same way a complete lack of formalized rules leads to a playground game of "Let's pretend".

Now I didn't take into account games systems whose method of abstraction is completely different from D&D and its ilk. The ones where the rules apply directly to the narratives, and not the objects described inside said narratives. Mainly becuase I have no experience with them.

You can't boil a complicated issue down into a binary choice, nor should you.

I took the orignal question to be a jumping off point for discussion.

 

[Matt Snyder]

I hear a lot of good about Burning Wheel. It's one of the systems whose rules having direct bearing on the game narrative, right (like that Dogs in the Vinyard thing I also keep hearing about?) And it also distributes narrative authority among the players. Or am I mistaken?

Burning Wheel is an awesome game.

It has a robust set of rules that do indeed have direct bearing on the game narrative. It specifically includes rules that indicate how effects and conflicts must be "enforced" (as opposed to allowing the GM to decide otherwise, i.e. GM fiat).

Burning Wheel does not distribute narrative authority formally as do other indie RPGs. It's mostly silent on this particular issue; there are no specific rules for "who narrates what" after events are decided by dice, for example. Other games do indeed do this specifically.

That said, there are parts of the game system that allow players to announce their actions and then the GM incorporates that. For example, in the Duel of Wits -- a system to resolve all kinds of social interaction -- players must narrate what their character does for each of his "manuevers" for the exchange (sorta like a set of combat rounds).

So, overall, the game is a bit more, um, loose on narration; there's a bit more give-and-take between GM and players. But, fundamentally, the game maintains a pretty traditional distribution of narration authority in the hands of the GM.

A large part of the enjoyment I get from RPG play comes from the limited narrative authority traditionally confered to players (coupled with a rule set that encourages on-the-fly human arbitrated task resolution). I want my ability to affect the game world to come primarily, if not entirely, through my character actions. Out another way, when I play, I want to explore the world, which I can't do if I also have a part in creating it. Do that make sense?

No, actually it doesn't make sense to me. I mean this respectfully! Not tring to be snide. Here's what I'm getting at. One thing you wrote is:

I want my ability to affect the game world to come primarily, if not entirely, through my character actions.

I read this as incompatible with GM Fiat. Here's why: You said you want your outcomes to be determined by your character's actions. GM Fiat -- as I've represented it in my previous posts -- doesnt' care one whit what your character's actions actually are. Certainly, it might appear to care, or somehow seem compatible. But, fundamentally, the decision on outcomes is that of the GM, not you, not your character, not the dice you roll, none of that.

In GM fiat, either the GM decides the outcome will be this or it will be that. That's it. Your characters actions don't really matter if the GM just decides otherwise, do they?

If you reply by saying "Well, the GM should take my character's actions into account." Ok, fine. That's cool. But, then it's not GM Fiat anymore, is it? Now, it's you and the GM agreeing that the outcome will be defined by THIS ROLL (or THIS CHOICE or THIS ACTION whatever). It's not the GM just making the decision anymore. It's something else; it's not GM fiat.

You also wrote:

I want to explore the world, which I can't do if I also have a part in creating it. Do that make sense?

This also does not make sense to me. I have played in games where both things are happening during play. I'm not saying you WANT to do that, but I am saying it's possible. I'm trying to argue that this is your personal preferencee, but NOT a paradoxical impossibility. Your preference is cool, but it's not representative of "role-playing" for example.

And, I'm not seeing how this particular issue relates to GM fiat (again, in the terms I'm talking about -- we're probably just seeing two different things when we each read "GM Fiat"). This is more about exploration of, say, a setting in which you discover mysteries and similar fun, surprising things during play. I'm just not seein how this has anything to do with GM Fiat directly. This issue isn't necessarily about GMs making arbitrary decisions so much as it is about GMs having extraordinary creative authority alone over a setting.

 

[buzz]

Or to resolve combat encounters when there is a disagreement on how the rules should work.

Very true. I was't really thinking about rules disgareements. Not to mention, we have a designated rules lawyer in my group who, regardless of whether he's the DM, is usually the one who settles those arguments.

Likely because a rules-heavy system will require large amounts of stoppage time to discern from the rules what a particular person can and cannot do. It is probable that DM Fiat, ie, the lattitude to ignore the rules, was written in to the system for game-play purposes. I see little irony here.

Oh, it's big-time irony! Irony because, if it's due to stoppage-time, then the better solution is to make the rules simpler to implement. But more pointedly, both GURPS's and HERO's GM sections spend a lot of time talking about using fiat to "make a better story" or "do what's fun," and this begs the question of why they included rules that will get in the way of "good story" and fun in the first place.

Honestly, they're saying: "Here's a massively complicated game, but --and don't tell the players this-- you'll have more fun and a smoother game if you ignore most of it."

Wacky! I love HERO to death, but the GMing chapter makes me want to throw the book out the window.

 

[buzz]

Burning Wheel is an awesome game.

Yup, and Matt sums up what I would have posted anyway.

And, I'm not seeing how this particular issue relates to GM fiat (again, in the terms I'm talking about -- we're probably just seeing two different things when we each read "GM Fiat"). This is more about exploration of, say, a setting in which you discover mysteries and similar fun, surprising things during play. I'm just not seein how this has anything to do with GM Fiat directly. This issue isn't necessarily about GMs making arbitrary decisions so much as it is about GMs having extraordinary creative authority alone over a setting.

I think it's because fiat is being conflated with narrative control, partiucalrly control over setting details.

Mallus, as Matt mentions, just because games like BW give the players a bit more narrative control in the sense that they can be direct about intent and the mechanics resolve conflicts, that doesn't mean that said players are creating the setting on the fly. There are some games like that (e.g., Universalis and Mortal Coil, as I understand them), but not all games of the ilk I'm talking about.

It's entirely possible to run BW (or TSoY, or many others) in a rich setting mostly created by the GM, or even published settings like FR or Ptolus. What I'm talking about is more authority over your PC. I don't think that the latter is incompatible with the former.

 

[Mallus]

It has a robust set of rules that do indeed have direct bearing on the game narrative. It specifically includes rules that indicate how effects and conflicts must be "enforced" (as opposed to allowing the GM to decide otherwise, i.e. GM fiat).

Could you give an example? Or point me to one?

For example, in the Duel of Wits -- a system to resolve all kinds of social interaction -- players must narrate what their character does for each of his "manuevers" for the exchange (sorta like a set of combat rounds).

See, here's where I prefer a free-form, unformalized style of play. Just talk it out. Character and player become one in the same. Then again, I'm much less interested in the result of social manuevering than I am in the sheer hilarity that often ensues... complete with bad accents and absurd turns of phrase. Call it the Mousetrap Principle; getting there is all the fun.

No, actually it doesn't make sense to me. I mean this respectfully!

It's not you, it's me... I was far from clear.

You said you want your outcomes to be determined by your character's actions.

Not exactly. I want outcomes in response to my character's actions. And I want the freedom to attempt things that aren't neccessarily described under the given rule system.

I'm less concerned with how those outcomes are decided vis a vis a formal system of task resolution. I'm perfectly happy for the DM to 'just decide'.

GM Fiat -- as I've represented it in my previous posts -- doesnt' care one whit what your character's actions actually are. Certainly, it might appear to care, or somehow seem compatible. But, fundamentally, the decision on outcomes is that of the GM, not you, not your character, not the dice you roll, none of that.

Dr. Akward was right, some definitions would be helpful...

I'm using "DM Fiat" in the most general (and perhaps none to useful) sense as anything that exceeds the scope of, or flat out violates the rules. Everything from non-standard NPC character creation to ruling on non-standard PC actions to "the villian just gets away".

Re: you're previous example with the treasure in the chest... I don't really understand why its important how or when the DM decided the gem was or wasn't there. Or if they consciously decided it at all. Just tell me what I find it at we'll take things from there.
Without resorting to mind-reading or an independent audit, how would a player know if the DM suddenly decided "Hey, its getting late, the gem's in the next chest."

In GM fiat, either the GM decides the outcome will be this or it will be that. That's it. Your characters actions don't really matter if the GM just decides otherwise, do they?

I'm having trouble envisoning play where GM completely disregards player input.

Player: "I go north"
GM: "No, in fact you go south."

My character actions matter as long as the GM engages with them.

If you reply by saying "Well, the GM should take my character's actions into account." Ok, fine. That's cool. But, then it's not GM Fiat anymore, is it?

Yeah, I'd say it is. But I've already admitted my working definiton of fiat is broad enough to be... err... junk. Perhaps we need something better.

This also does not make sense to me. I have played in games where both things are happening during play. I'm not saying you WANT to do that, but I am saying it's possible. I'm trying to argue that this is your personal preferencee, but NOT a paradoxical impossibility. Your preference is cool, but it's not representative of "role-playing" for example.

I was thinking (and but not writing) about games where players have more narrative authority. Where the player has a hand in "setting the scene", establishing narrative context outside of their characters, where they get tools to modify the game environment directly.

 

[buzz]

Could you give an example? Or point me to one?

Part of making any roll invoves a statement of intent to whcih both the player and GM agree. basically, stakes-setting.

Player: "I want to roll to pick the lock before the guards come."
GM: "Okay, but if you fail the roll, you pick the lock, but the guards catch you in the act."
Player: "Cool. Let's roll."

See, here's where I prefer a free-form, unformalized style of play. Just talk it out. Character and player become one in the same. Then again, I'm much less interested in the result of social manuevering than I am in the sheer hilarity that often ensues... complete with bad accents and absurd turns of phrase. Call it the Mousetrap Principle; getting there is all the fun.

You absotively roleplay all of the manuevers in a Duel of Wits. You cannot just say, "I bluff him." You have to act it out, or at least make clear what it is your PC is doing and saying.

On top of this, Duel of Wits is not mandatory for all social interaction. It's primarily for when players can't agree on an outcome. If you can roleplay an outcome that everyone's happy with, then you do so. If not, then you bust out the dice and see whose argument prevails.

I'm having trouble envisoning play where GM completely disregards player input.

I wish I could have the same trouble, but I've been there too often.

 

[IcyCool]

Player: "I want to roll to pick the lock before the guards come."
GM: "Okay, but if you fail the roll, you pick the lock, but the guards catch you in the act."
Player: "Cool. Let's roll."

So the difference between this and what Matt describes as GM fiat is ... the player knows what the future holds prior to rolling the dice?

 

[howandwhy99]

This is almost silly. The DM creates the world right? How is that not arbitrary? Is there some aspect of adventure creation where the Players get to dictate what is included and what is not before playing? It is all arbitrary to the designer and then DM. Of course wisdom says design towards your players' likes, but that should go without saying.

OTOH, if you're asking if I fudge rolls, no. I don't fudge rolls.

 

[Matt Snyder]

Hi, Mallus. I'll try to address all your excellent questions:

First, the example. In Burning Wheel, there is a very specific rule called "Let It Ride." Basically, the rule demands that after players have rolled the dice to decide some outcome, that outcome cannot be constantly "re-rolled." It must be maintained without further rolls for a reasonable time. Basically, this is a rule that gets all players (including GM) to agree that once they roll for something, they accept the outcome. This is opposed to rolling, not accepting the outcome, moving the goal posts a bit, rolling agin, not accepting THAT outcome, re-rolling ... etc.

Second, about the character actions helping the GM decide things. totally cool that this is your preference! Not much I have to say about that. It works for you and your GM, and that's what matters. The only thing I'd add to this is the observation that THAT THING you describe ("freeforming" and "just letting the GM decide" is, itself, a kind of system. It's an informal, unspoken, unwritten one, sure. But, it's a system. That it's functional is the secret to success. Seems yours works for you. Good.

Now on to our slightly different takes on GM Fiat. This gets pretty interesting, in my view, and the conversation so far is pretty cool. Hopefully you and others are finding some use out of it. Anyway ...

First off, I think I understand how you're using the term. I have much less problem with, say, the GM making up some non-standard NPC stat blocks than I do with, say, the GM just saying "the villain just gets away." With the stat blocks, I as a player still have means to intereact with, perhaps defeat if necessary, that NPC. I still make valuable choices about the game (attack this NPC, intimidate that one, etc.). That's cool. But, when the GM says "he just gets away" that drives me crazy. My preference is strongly against that kind of fiat. When the GM does that, he eliminates huge significant choices I might be able to make on the story (e.g. defeat the NPC, convince the NPC to join our cause instead, cast helpful spells on him, etc.)

Second, some examination of the chest examples. You said:

I don't really understand why its important how or when the DM decided the gem was or wasn't there. Or if they consciously decided it at all. Just tell me what I find it at we'll take things from there.

You can see in your language where you've ONLY talked about whether the GM decides at all, yes? That is, you have not talked at all about whether someone ELSE (other than the GM ALONE) works out the means by which the bauble is in the chest (for example, the player and the GM collaborate on deciding, and use the dice to determine the outcome). That's the entire point of those examples. You seem to be not interested in such possiblities in the interest of your preferences (i.e. "Decide already, GM, so we can play, because I'm cool with YOU deciding! Who cares how or why you do it! You do it, and the game goes on.") And, that's fine.

But, my point has been entirely that your supposition is not the ONLY possibility, even in D&D play. Since we're talking about deciding things that are "outside" the written rules of play, I see no reason we can't come up with OTHER means to decide such things that are often a "given" as the sole property of the GM. I view this as a false assumption about role-playing in general. It is mistaking a tradition or a personal preference for the whole range of acceptable options. In fact, there are many acceptable options that still remain "role-playing."

Third, you talked about having trouble envisioning play play where the GM completely disregards player input. In fact, I argue that this happens all the time. It's almost never as absurd and contradictory as the north / south discussion. But, it does happen.

For example, suppose you are the GM, and you've prepared a scenario for the start of a session -- a quick fight to get things moving and get players interested right away. You set it in the dark alleys of the Big City, and their old enemy (the one that "just got away" last time!) is going to attack them along with, oh, some were rats. You stat up the enemies, and are set to go because you just KNOW those crazy players will be wandering the Big City to buy and sell some new stuff. You even make a map of the store, and the back room where the ambush will occur.

Except they throw you a curve ball and tell you that they're all leaving the city first thing. Uh oh! Good-bye ambush. Except ... no. Now it's easy. Let's just have the ambush happen on the road in the dark woods. Neat.

So, here's a quicker version of what happens.

GM: "So you're in the city, when suddenly ... "
Players: "Nope, we're on the road.
GM: "Oh, I see. Ok, you're on the road when suddenly ... "

See? The players made a choice ... that had literally NO consequences on what the GM had already decided to put into play. It didn't matter whether they said they were on the road, in the city, or on a boat or whatever. Nothing they do will change your GM-mind that, by golly, they're going to get ambushed by this old enemy.

Now, this could have gone differently, sure. Once they left the city, the GM could ignore the ambush. Or save it for later. Or, throw something else at them. Or not. Most anything we could imagine could happen. But, in this example, what DID happen is that the GM decided something, and no matter what the players decided that might contradict it, the GM just moved the goal posts. In other words, the players had no real choice at all.

They might as well have said "We go north." And, in his mind, the GM thinks "Well, they go north, sure, but I'm going to throw the South thing at them anyway. They'll never know the difference." and he says "Ok, in fact you go north (scribble scribble)." Roll!

I find this play utterly distasteful and unfun. Many, many other role-players do not. More power to 'em, I guess. It's just not my thing. It's not objectively WRONG. It's just not what I prefer.

Now, you also asked, how in the heck would we KNOW this happened? Usually, we wouldn't. Pages and pages of "GM advice" cherish exactly this kind of sleight of hand. It's held up frequently as "Good GMing." Indeed, one of the secrets to its success is that the player NEVER find out the GM is fudging and moving the scenery behind the curtain and all that.

Why? Becauses if the players find out that the GMs is really his parents dressed up as Santa Claus, they'll begin to mistrust what he says about their input in the game. I have participated in such games. It is the reason I find the play style distasteful!


Fourth...

If you reply by saying "Well, the GM should take my character's actions into account." Ok, fine. That's cool. But, then it's not GM Fiat anymore, is it?

Yeah, I'd say it is. But I've already admitted my working definiton of fiat is broad enough to be... err... junk. Perhaps we need something better.

You're right! That was an awful example from me. It IS GM fiat as I read it again, even as I have been using it. Yes, GM fiat can indeed involve input from the player, maybe from the player's character sheet. (For example, "Hmm, his best skill rank is Hide ... ok, how about this happens ...")

I think my point there is this: Even if you make some input via your character's action -- particuarly even if you make a die roll ... none of that especially matters. Sure, the GM can take those things into account, but the decision is ultimately his, without much recourse. You can't say "Hey, no way! I rolled an 18! No way that happens!" You MIGHT be able to say "C'mon, man, no way. My guy's Hide skill rocks! How come THAT happens? No way." The GM can change his mind, but nothing's forcing him too (nothing except you getting up from the table and ceasing to play). He chooses what he chooses, for the reasons he chooses them. And, frankly, that's his prerogative in the game for most groups.

But, me? No thanks. Again, this is a matter of preference. Given the choice between this GM fiat here, even with my "input" and some other means, I'll choose the other means every time. Not all groups and GMs offer that choice, and not all groups WANT to. More power to 'em, too!

The real difference is one of SYSTEM -- where system INCLUDES the "unwritten" stuff that your group uses to decide how things happen in the game. GM Fiat is one kind of system. It's the system your group uses to decides stuff when it's outside of combat, for example. But, there are OTHER kinds of system (unwritten ones, usually) that can work, too. I'm advocating my personal preference for such systems, and trying to demonstrate they are feasible. But, I'm not trying to convince you or others one way or the other that GM Fiat is awful, terrible stuff and you should do something like me.

Wow, that was MUCH longer than I intended. Oh well, hope you and others find something interesting in there. Food for thought, let's say. This is a good thread; thanks for talking about this stuff!