Is DM fiat okay?

[Matt Snyder]

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?

Hi, IcyCool. Yes, I'd say that's a fair summation of the difference.

Humor me back to my silly chest and the bauble examples. You're the rogue player. I'm the GM. We can go a couple of different ways here, really, but here's the simplest:

You say out loud to me. "I want to find this bauble. How about if I make this roll, it's in the chest?"

I say in return. "Ok, that's fine. You've got to make this roll. If you do, you find the bauble."

This is different from GM fiat because you, the player, have decided somethign ALONG WITH the GM. The GM didn't decide. Instead, he agreed that the two of you will base the decision on the outcome of the roll!

NOTE that this is different than this possible situation:

You say out loud to me: "I want to find this bauble. How about if I make this roll, it's in the chest."

I tell you in reply: "How about you make the darn roll. I'll let you know when you find it."

You have no idea of what the outcome will be, even if you're successful. There is nothign at stake here, because all the GM has to do is change his mind at any point to pull the rug out from underneath you.

You roll. And, let's say you fail. Now you have no idea whether the bauble's in the chest. Is it? Does the GM actually know "where" it is? How many more rolls will you have to make to find this bauble? How many more chests? You have no idea.

Is that frustrating to you? Some people find it frustrating and no fun (I do). Others find it "realistic" and lots of fun. C'est la guerre!

 

[Matt Snyder]

How, howandwhy99.

You are correct to observe that in the vast majority of games, creating the world is the GM's prerogative. This is the default assumption of our hobby, and how more than probably 99% of games operate. It is not, however, required that RPGs in general or D&D in particular function this way.

In fact, I have created an alternative D&D/d20 experience system that allows players to help create their own adventures and goals collaboratively with the GM. I call it the Wyrd system. You can about it here:

Wyrd -- an alternative experience system

 

[Jeremy E Grenemyer]

I voted yes, inasmuch as I define the term fiat for myself as a DM.

For other DMs....I say yes as well, generally speaking.

J. Grenemyer

 

[ThirdWizard]

In general, though, when you focus on conflicts and narrative control instead of task resolution, you suddenly see the need for GM fiat fade away.

I see the opposite. The more you focus on the narrative, the more fiat is involved. The more intrigue-oriented the plots, the more fiat that must be used, unless the DM is rolling NPC vs. NPC off-screen diplomacy rolls and Int/Wis checks to see what the NPCs decide to decide to do. The Emporor convinces the local bandits to start targetting his enemies as they travel to an event in the capitol he's running? You'd better have made some diplomacy rolls to make it happen, or its DM fiat!

This is almost silly. The DM creates the world right? How is that not arbitrary?

That's the answer. "There is a red dragon's lair to the north and a swamp with lizardfolk to the south" is GM fiat. "The bartender is a male dwarf who hates elves" is GM fiat. Any decision the DM makes that is not based on the RAW is fiat. In that sense, how can fiat be a bad thing, and how can it possibly be avoidable?

For example, I never roll for treasure in my adventures; I choose each item individually. That's pure DM fiat, I think, by any definition of the term.

The point, I think, shouldn't be if its acceptable, the point should be in determining how far you want to to go with it, just like railroading.

 

[Xyanthon]

I voted yes. While I do support and encourage player input and will take that into consideration; ultimately in my campaign it is the DM who makes the final ruling when the rules are unclear or do not seem to work in a given situation.

 

[Mallus]

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."

Thanks buzz... that was helpful, and intriguing.

I've always thought of RPG's as essentially a series of negotiations between the player(s) and GM. So BW cuts through all the haphazard modelling systems employed in more traditional RPG's and instead has rules to govern the negotiation of meaninful outcomes? Am I getting that right? That's pretty elegant, and not what I pictured it being.

I can see how a system built around that framework could cover everything. It wouldn't matter how plausible an outcome was; whether it accurately represented the real world, Star Trek, a four color comic universe, or anything else for that matter. All that would matter is if the interested parties agreed on a set of outcomes.

That would mean the level of "realism" (forgive me for using such a loaded term) would scale according to the people playing. A group of Green Berets could set their stakes based on their real life experiences, as could a group of trial lawyers, or 12 years olds.

Wow, that's clever. I'd really like to find a group using BW. I want to see this in play.

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.

Heh... I run D&D like that. My players roll for social interaction when they aren't enjoying the actual talking, or are too busy fighting.

The last time a PC rolled a Diplomacy check the group was quite literally in the middle of a fight with ninjas...

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

I'm started to think I've been pretty lucky with my play experiences.

 

[buzz]

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?

There's an agreement as to the stakes, and you're dealing directly with the goal the player is trying to achieve.

In D&D, the DM isn't bound by any sort of stakes. Whether you pick the lock before the guards come depends on: the action required for the ask as defined in the book, the distance of the nearest guard, and how fast the guard can move. On top of this, it's entirely possible that the DM can decide there's a guard that's so close that there's no way you can pick the lock in time, or there's conveneintly another guard that you never knew about, or that the guard regularly comes into this room on his rounds in order to feed the master's fish, so you never had a chance of completing your task unnoticed to begin with.

That's a whole bunch of points for fiat to come into play. I'm not saing this is good or bad, I'm just saying that in BW, there's stakes that are agreed to by both the player and GM, and then you roll the bones. In D&D, you're relying more on trust and negotiation.

 

[buzz]

I see the opposite. The more you focus on the narrative, the more fiat is involved.

I was talking specifically about mechanics, not just play focus. If the mechanic addresses conflict and narrative, you don't have to go outside the rules to address them. In the lock-picking example, D&D relies on fiat and negotiation in order to answer the question of whether the PC pickes the lock beore the guards find out (unless the DM has been very specific about planning guard staffing and position and is tracking their movements round to round).

In a conflict resolution system, the die roll decides, once the people at the table have agreed that it's the conflict they want to resolve.

That's the answer. "There is a red dragon's lair to the north and a swamp with lizardfolk to the south" is GM fiat.

It's what I would call setting/situation creation and scene framing.

Fiat, to me, refers to methods of resolution, i.e., determining what happens. I know from a previous thread that the dictionary definition of fiat is broad enough to apply to any and all decisions a DM makes, but I don't think that it's a useful definition for the purposes of discussion. I would not, w/r/t D&D as-written, challenge that setting, situation, and scene framing are squarely in the DM's domain. The real question at hand is adjudicating events after you bring players into the equation.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

Fifth, the bauable MAY or MAY NOT be in the chest.

In D&D, I suspect you could actually kill Schrodinger's Cat. And get xp.

 

[Vigilance]

I answered "No." I recognize the option of choosing "yes" and fully understand why people would prefer that, for example. It's perfectly viable and fun, particularly if everyone's on board.

However, I do not well understand how people cannot comprehend the "No" option at all. There are means to play by which GM fiat can be avoided. Some of these means are unconventional and quite different from standard play. It's not everyone's cup of tea; again, it's a matter of preference.

I will attempt a quick stab at what I mean: I understand GM fiat to describe the means by which uncodified decisions are made. By default, most game groups defer to the judgment of the GM. This is fine, but not required nor "definitional" to role-playing games.

Here is an example:

Suppose your D&D characters are after some kind of bauble that's important for the adventure. Let's say it's "supposed" to be inside a castle or something. You're not sure where it is, so you enter the castle and start looking. You enter what appears to be an "important" room -- the castle lord's vault, let's say.

You find a chest. You tell the GM the following: "Ok, I think the bauble's in the chest. I'm going to use my Rogue's skills to pick the lock -- I check for traps first, of course (roll). Ok, now I'd like to open the lock (roll)."

At this point in time, ther are a number of ways this can happen:

First, the bauble COULD be in the chest. The GM knows it, you don't. If you open the lock, voila! The bauble is yours. Neat. No GM fiat. The GM didn't decide anything "arbitrarily." You had a challenge. You overcame it with a skill roll. Cool beans. This is pretty normal play.

Second, the bauble could NOT be in the chest. The GM knows it, you don't. Even if you open the lock, no bauble. Boo hoo. But, it isn't aribitrary. The GM just had a scenario created, and this chest didn't contain the bauble in his notes. No big deal, and again pretty normal.

Third, the bauble "WAS" in the chest, but the GM decides right then and there it's too easy for your group to get it at this time, so he "moves" it. Boo hoo, no bauble. THIS IS GM FIAT. (MY preference: I think this sucks!)

Fourth, the bauble "WASN'T" in the chest. But, given the circumstances (maybe, for example, it's getting late in "real world" time and the adventure needs to be over soon) the GM decides right then and there to "move" it into the chest. Yay. You get the bauble. THIS IS GM FIAT. (Again, MY preference: I think this sucks!).

Fifth, the bauable MAY or MAY NOT be in the chest. The GM doesn't know and neither do you. But, you both decide that it'd be a pretty cool place for the bauble to be, and entirely plausible given the environment and adventure. SO, the in reaction to your annoucement, the GM says, "Ok, cool. If you make this skill roll, plus another search roll, you'll find the bauble." Sweet! You just convinced the GM to agree to your terms. THIS IS NOT GM FIAT. (MY prefernce: I think this rocks!)

So, you can see that GM fiat really boils down to who makes decisions, particuarly "on the fly." And, you can further see that there are means -- whether you prefer them or not -- to remove GM fiat from the game entirely. YOu and your group can choose OTHER means than GM fiat to resolve decisions. One way is to set it up so that you make a request, the GM approves the possible outcomes of that request, and the dice decide what happens. That;'s is pretty cool stuff!

I've used DM fiat to shortcut things and make adventures more enjoyable. I think this is fine. When players are frustrated and missing clues, I dont let them wallow, I provide them with a less subtle clue.

Cause, you know, fun should come before my "DM ethics" or whatever.

Chuck