Is DM fiat okay?

[Mallus]

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

Excellent? More like 'unfocused and mostly unstated'... but thanks anyway.

In Burning Wheel, there is a very specific rule called "Let It Ride."...

Hey, I like that. Would that mean if the outcome was 'We sneak past the guards', that would mean the players snuck past all the guards in a specific scene, and you would move on to the next type of conflict?

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.

I realize that. Its fair to say in the D&D campaign I run there are often several "systems" running side by side. One looks something like the D&D RAW. Another looks like a group of writers for a sketch comedy show working on a skit about swords and sorcery novels that will never air...

It's something I like best about RPG's; there usually isn't just a single rule system in effect. Sometimes task resolution involves a die roll, other times some bad acting. Sometimes all it takes is a good idea.

But, when the GM says "he just gets away" that drives me crazy.

I don't like it either, frankly. But I can see why its done. And how much it bothers me depends on the genre expectations in play. In a supers game, its fine.

You can see in your language where you've ONLY talked about whether the GM decides at all, yes?

Well, yes. That's the standard model. Players control their avatars and the DM/GM controls the enviroment and the supporting cast.

But, my point has been entirely that your supposition is not the ONLY possibility, even in D&D play.

I recognize that there are other possibilities. That's what was getting at when I brought up narrative authority and the 'exploration thing'. When I DM, I like sharing the narrative authority, when I play, I don't.

I don't want the right to help decide what's in chest because having that right damages my ability to mantain that oft-mention 'suspension of disblief'. I prefer the play model which empowers the DM/GM to create the world, gem-placement and all. Where my ability to manipulate the game world is limited to my character.

I like a 'solid' game world. Me-as-player having narrative rights over it, even itsy-bitsy ones like collaborative gem-placement, makes things feel all wispy...

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.

Sure. And I think its interesting to explore the ramifications of those 'other means'.

...snip...I find this play utterly distasteful and unfun. Many, many other role-players do not....snip...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."

Whew... I'm too tired for this. I'm not up for an 'illusion of free will vs. actual free will in RPG's' debate right now. I'll check back in tomorrow.

But I'll leave with a lyric from Robyn Hitchcock... "If you think you're in love, then you probably are".

 

[howandwhy99]

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.

Don't mind my snark. I posted to the OP before reading the thread. I think Buzz here sums up nicely the difference between the definition of DM fiat I was using and what others are. Of the 5 examples that Matt Snyder shows: I agree with the first 4 (pretty common ones) and have only heard of the 5th style being used in Forge games.

I, for one, am vehemently against games with single Situations and Premises as defined in Forge lingo. As a DM I take the referee position. The world is created with lots of suggestions and offerings by the players (both before play and during) and I incorporate whatever I like with the same veto power I would use for new rules (prestige classes, feats, spells, etc.). As the DM it is my job to entwine these into the world/setting. Offered Situations/Modules/Adventures are changed by me for the same reason anyone would alter a mystery story that's part of the public domain.

However, once the peices are up and running the only god-like status I hold is as the watchmaker. I make sure everything runs smoothly according to the agreed upon rules and watch as the world plays out. Adventures are never run singly and, in truth, not even plotweaved together. That is, unless, being fit logically in the same world as other adventures is considered plotweaving. Also, plots are never dictated. They are the goals and desires of the NPCs. I'd never think to enforce specific courses of action on the players (especially when it's called a Plot or Adventure Synopsis).

As to adjudicating events using GM-Player agreement, it's far to metagamey for my tastes. Players would have to break character every time we rolled a die to determine an outcome. It also presumes that Players know everything there is to know about a situation. Bargaining for an outcome is fine, but my DCs or target numbers are going to be the same everytime. The guards in the example are on a timed schedule even if I just made it up minutes before as that was when it became relevant. The DCs, the odd NPC behaviors, are the challenges for Players to overcome in character. I'm not about to remove them from the game.

OTOH, don't you see a difficulty arising from the GM/Player agreement phase? If the GM doesn't agree with Players' bargaining, is he using DM Fiat? Are arguments a common occurence during these periods? Are they acceptable? When the DM isn't a referee, but instead a conveyer of player wishes D&D stops being a game in my mind. It no longer has winners or losers. It's simply wish fulfilment which doesn't require dice at all.

If a player or players don't like what is happening in a game I run, they can always choose another course. There is no dictate that only one road or series of roads lead to the final outcome. And if a player can't find anything of interest in the world, then I'd hope they would offer more suggestions, that they would speak their mind before switching to another game. That's the best I can offer to remove DM fiat from even the Setting portion of RPGs.

 

[Matt Snyder]

OTOH, don't you see a difficulty arising from the GM/Player agreement phase? If the GM doesn't agree with Players' bargaining, is he using DM Fiat? Are arguments a common occurence during these periods? Are they acceptable? When the DM isn't a referee, but instead a conveyer of player wishes D&D stops being a game in my mind. It no longer has winners or losers. It's simply wish fulfilment which doesn't require dice at all.

As I've said, I like the style of play you're skeptical of here. To answer your questions:

No, it's not difficult at all. It's quite fun.

If the GM doesn't agree, he might be using Fiat. Just depends.

Arguments are not common. I don't find them particularly acceptable, either, though.

While your preferences indicate that game ceases to become a game, this is not an objective definition. I do not agree that it ceases to be a game, and I find the activity extraordinarily rewarding and fun. Also, such activity can indeed require dice. I find that more collaborative play WITH dice is almost always MUCH more entertaining than similar activity WITHOUT dice.

 

[MonsterMash]

A qualified yes, as it can help to keep campaigns fresh and alive, but has to be used with care.

 

[D'karr]

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!

It is still GM Fiat. Because the GM can just as easily decide to NOT AGREE to let the outcome be decided by 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.

Well, first of all I play a game with people I like and respect. I don't talk to my friends like that, I don't talk to my children like that and I sure as all heck don't talk to my wife like that. However, all this is besides the point. If you play with asshat DMs then that is a choice you've already made. An asshat DM can be as much of an asshat with either system.

The fact of the matter is that the character on the "narrative" has no idea if the bauble is going to be in the box. What if the DM had already placed the bauble somewhere else where it is important for it to be? Does he now have to change his mind because a player just "wants" the bauble to be in this box?

Sorry, but the argument for it is not very convincing for D&D. If you have a system that relies solely on that type of mechanic, that is fine. D&D was not built that way. However, I don't think the "agreed narrative" system works as advertised, specially when what people are complaining about is DMs that DM poorly because of some sort of social misfit complex. The game system is not going to fix that.

 

[Thurbane]

So the vibe I'm getting here is that DM fiat is OK if the DM is rooting for the players, but not OK if the DM is adversarial, or even worse, impartial. Am I reading this sentiment wrongly?

 

[Matt Snyder]

Hi, D'karr.

First off, good! I'm very pleased to hear you have a good understanding among you and your fellow players. This is among the most important things to having fun in role-playing games.

The fact of the matter is that the character on the "narrative" has no idea if the bauble is going to be in the box. What if the DM had already placed the bauble somewhere else where it is important for it to be? Does he now have to change his mind because a player just "wants" the bauble to be in this box?

Possibly. While that may be distasteful or strange to some GMs, that's exactly what I'm saying MAY be fun for some people.

Sorry, but the argument for it is not very convincing for D&D. If you have a system that relies solely on that type of mechanic, that is fine. D&D was not built that way.

It isn't? Why? Can you point to pieces of text that explain this is a no no? I can't, but then others are MUCH better versed in the game than me.

Some of this thread has hinged on GM fiat that becomes necessary precisely because the D&D rules are silent and unwritten on certain issues -- that is, that there is no rules text to come down on this issue one way or the other. In other words, people are saying stuff like "Well, since there are no rules in D&D for this or that thing, we just let the GM decide himself." And, you know, that's cool. It works great for many, many groups. It's one way to answer those unwritten questions. But, it's not the ONLY way. That's all I'm advocating. That there are other ways, even if they aren't common or preferred by the majority.

However, I don't think the "agreed narrative" system works as advertised, specially when what people are complaining about is DMs that DM poorly because of some sort of social misfit complex. The game system is not going to fix that.

Right on! I couldn't agree with you more on this! To be completely clear, I am in no way advocating otherwise.

 

[buzz]

It is still GM Fiat. Because the GM can just as easily decide to NOT AGREE to let the outcome be decided by the roll.

It really depends on the specific system in question. To come back to BW again, the player doesn't have the authority to set stakes like, "If I make this roll, there's a bauble in the chest." Ergo, it's not fiat for the GM to say, "That's not possible. You have to actually figure out which chest the bauble is in." That just the GM letting the player know what the situation is. A different system might give players the authority to make such stakes, and in that case, the GM isn't using fiat to deny a roll, he's actively cheating.

An asshat DM can be as much of an asshat with either system.
...
However, I don't think the "agreed narrative" system works as advertised, specially when what people are complaining about is DMs that DM poorly because of some sort of social misfit complex. The game system is not going to fix that.

I'd argue that conflict/stakes-based systems make it awfully hard for the GM to be an asshat and still actually play the game. Since the GM can't force stakes upon anyone, an asshat is going to be saying "no" so often that the game is going to grind to a screeching halt in minutes. "Saying 'no' and refusing to roll dice" = no game.

D&D or HERO, otoh, can go on for literally years before players start to realize, "Hey, the GM isn't really letting my character do anything, is he?" I've experienced this exact thing in my HERO group, and seen it confirmed anecdotally in many other groups.

So, yeah, there are good DMs and bad ones, but the system can either conceal this fact from the players or make it immediately apparent.

 

[buzz]

So the vibe I'm getting here is that DM fiat is OK if the DM is rooting for the players, but not OK if the DM is adversarial, or even worse, impartial. Am I reading this sentiment wrongly?

That's not the point I'm making, FWIW.

 

[D'karr]

It really depends on the specific system in question. To come back to BW again, the player doesn't have the authority to set stakes like, "If I make this roll, there's a bauble in the chest." Ergo, it's not fiat for the GM to say, "That's not possible. You have to actually figure out which chest the bauble is in." That just the GM letting the player know what the situation is. A different system might give players the authority to make such stakes, and in that case, the GM isn't using fiat to deny a roll, he's actively cheating.

My point is that if the DM in either system wants to be an asshat or worse yet, is an asshat, the system is not going to fix that.

A DM can just as easily say "that is not possible... etc." on either system. Either system is as susceptible to abuse by asshats. In your example he said, "That's not possible. You have to actually figure out which chest the bauble is in." So now the player needs to still search the other chests. How is that any different than making the character hunt through the whole location looking for the bauble.

In the other example with the locked door and guard the DM still had to decide if there was a guard there. In either example the DM could easily have screwed the player. If the DM wanted to screw with the player all he had to do was reword the "agreement".

DM Fiat is not bad. Bad DMs are bad.