Is DM fiat okay?

[IcyCool]

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.

The DM can do all of those with the system you are touting as well. The only difference is, the player knows about it before the roll, and his character receives some sort of "sixth sense" about the action. If the DM had decided that you don't have enough time to pick the lock before a guard got there, how would your character know that?

The only difference between the way this is resolved in D&D and the way it's resolved in BW appears to be that the player knows what will happen ahead of time (and as such, he could metagame ("negotiate") his way to a more favorable solution for him). Is that correct, or am I missing something?

 

[buzz]

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.

No system will prevent the existence of asshats, true.

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 BW version, it's not screwing because the player was asking for something wholly beyond his authority. Id a shared-authority system, it'd be impossible for the GM to say no without essentially not the playing the game.

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".

No, he couldn't. In BW, the GM could not agree to "...without being noticed by the guards" and then say, "Oops! There was a guard you didn't know about. Tough luck." That would literally be cheating. The agreed outcome of the roll stands; it's inviolate.

On top of this the player also has to agree to the stakes. If the GM literally refuses to to agree to any intent that involves not being caught by the guards, the player can, in turn, refuse to undertake the task.

In the equivalent D&D situation, if the DM decides ahead of time that the PC will get caught no matter what, there's nothing the player can do. He states that he's going to pick the lock, he rolls the dice, and hopes that the DM adjudicates the outcome fairly.

(For the record, I am not trying to argue: "D&D bad! BW good!" I'm just trying to explain the difference.)

 

[IcyCool]

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!

Or the GM could just as easily say, "The bauble isn't in this chest." He can decide to take your suggestion (or character's actions) into account, but he doesn't have to do what you (the player) suggest. The difference appears to be that you want to be able to nail the GM down so that you know ahead of time what could happen (I'm assuming that in your framework, the player is free to decide that he doesn't want to perform the action if he doesn't like what the DM's 'stake' is.). I'm not saying that is bad. It just doesn't sound like a lot of fun to me. I don't game with DM's I don't trust though, so ... *shrug* (I'd rather not play, than play with a DM I don't trust, even with your framework)

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!

No, it isn't frustrating to me. Either I trust my DM to run a fun game, or I don't. I don't give a rats bottom about "realism", just fun. And I can't see how knowing the exact outcome of every action I might attempt, before I attempt it, is fun (for me, or the other players).

 

[IcyCool]

DM Fiat is not bad. Bad DMs are bad.

Quoted for Truth.

 

[buzz]

The DM can do all of those with the system you are touting as well. The only difference is, the player knows about it before the roll, and his character receives some sort of "sixth sense" about the action. If the DM had decided that you don't have enough time to pick the lock before a guard got there, how would your character know that?

"You don't have enough time," is pretty much the equivalent of "No," and the GM generally can't just say "no" in conflict-based systems. If the outcome is uncertain, you're rolling dice.

But, the main point is that the GM and player are laying out consequences and goals explicitly. Once agreed to, the GM can't screw with them. There is no equivalent in D&D; regardless of your roll, the DM can whatever they want. "Yes, you made all of your Move Silently rolls to get past the army sleeping orcs. Unfortunately, one right next to you wakes up from a bad dream, sees you, and sounds the alarm!" In a system like BW, the rules specifically prohibit dickweed behavior like that.

The only difference between the way this is resolved in D&D and the way it's resolved in BW appears to be that the player knows what will happen ahead of time (and as such, he could metagame ("negotiate") his way to a more favorable solution for him). Is that correct, or am I missing something?

The player is aware of the consequences, and the outcome, good or ill, cannot be fudged with after the fact. If I make my roll, I get what we agreed to. If I fail my roll, the GM gets what we agreed to.

As for metagaming, there are still skill descriptions with parameters in BW. A player can't declare his intent to be something like, "If I make my roll, I sneak past the guards... and a bag of money falls out of the sky!"

 

[buzz]

And I can't see how knowing the exact outcome of every action I might attempt, before I attempt it, is fun (for me, or the other players).

Well, keep in mind, the focus of games like BW isn't the suspense of finding out whether you pick the lock successfully. It's where the outcome of that task pushes the story, and what it means to the overall goals you're pursuing. This is admittedly different from D&D, so you certainly may not be interested in that kind of game.

Granted, not every outcome is known in BW. Combat is still combat, for instance; you might die, you might get maimed, you might kill the other guy with nary a scratch on you. In a DoW, you might get what you want with no concessions, you might have to give up something you didn't expect in order to get what you want, or you might lose, but get a concession that you find you prefer to what you were originally after. There's also an example in the book of where a PC's Instinct (an "always on" behavior) to always cast the equivalent of Cause Fear at the beginning of a fight scares away the very person he was trying to meet; unfortunately, he biffed his Observation roll in the dark alley and thought she was someone else.

And in the guards/lockpicking example we've been using, what happens if the player biffs his roll is still unpredictable. "Okay, you picked the lock, but a squad of guards turns the corner and catches you!" "Crap! I gotta find a way out of this..."

 

[IcyCool]

"You don't have enough time," is pretty much the equivalent of "No," and the GM generally can't just say "no" in conflict-based systems. If the outcome is uncertain, you're rolling dice.

So if the player says, "If I make my roll, I sneak past the guards." then the GM can't say no for any reason (even a good one)? That sounds pretty terrible actually.

The player is aware of the consequences, and the outcome, good or ill, cannot be fudged with after the fact. If I make my roll, I get what we agreed to. If I fail my roll, the GM gets what we agreed to.

You seem unwilling to answer my question, so I'll reword it. Assuming that the GM doesn't fudge anything, or decide to screw the player, the only difference between the two is that the player knows the outcome (for good or bad) before the dice are rolled, yes?

 

[buzz]

So if the player says, "If I make my roll, I sneak past the guards." then the GM can't say no for any reason (even a good one)? That sounds pretty terrible actually.

The GM is not required to agree to that intent. If he does agree to that intent, and the roll is successful, he can't then go back on his word and subvert that intent. In D&D, the only thing prevent the DM from doing so is his sense of fairness. If he wants your Move Silent roll to mean nothing, it will mean nothing.

You seem unwilling to answer my question, so I'll reword it.

Easy, now.

Assuming that the GM doesn't fudge anything, or decide to screw the player, the only difference between the two is that the player knows the outcome (for good or bad) before the dice are rolled, yes?

I was trying to point out that it's a difference, yes. The main difference is that the roll means something, and the GM can't change that.

 

[D'karr]

No system will prevent the existence of asshats, true.

No, he couldn't. In BW, the GM could not agree to "...without being noticed by the guards" and then say, "Oops! There was a guard you didn't know about. Tough luck." That would literally be cheating. The agreed outcome of the roll stands; it's inviolate.

On top of this the player also has to agree to the stakes. If the GM literally refuses to to agree to any intent that involves not being caught by the guards, the player can, in turn, refuse to undertake the task.

In the equivalent D&D situation, if the DM decides ahead of time that the PC will get caught no matter what, there's nothing the player can do. He states that he's going to pick the lock, he rolls the dice, and hopes that the DM adjudicates the outcome fairly.

(For the record, I am not trying to argue: "D&D bad! BW good!" I'm just trying to explain the difference.)

I understand your point and we've already agreed that no system will prevent abuse.

The problem is the abuse, not the fact that the DM can make an arbitrary decision.

In either game the outcome is still at the "mercy" of the DM. In either system the DM does not have to tell the player that there are guards or where they are.

In D&D, if a character misses his Spot roll he doesn't see the guard(s). In the other game if the player misses the "agreed roll" he still doesn't see the guard(s). The outcome is the same. For all intents and purposes the guards fall under that "setting/situation creation and scene framing." The DM does not have to tell the players on either game where the guards are. So by carefully phrasing the "agreement" the DM can screw the players just as much.

The game becomes one of those commercials with the narrator reading the "small script" very fast...

Like I said before, DM Fiat is not bad and for D&D it is appropriate. DM Fiat for a boardgame is not bad, but it is not appropriate. In the "agreement" game DM fiat is still there, it is just hidden behind the contract.

When 3.0 came out one of the things they tried to do was give as many rules as possible to cover as many common situations as possible, so there would be no confusion as to how the game was meant to be played. I remember somebody at WotC saying that the only thing they could not provide in the "box" was a good DM. So they tried to level the playing field. Those are all admirable goals. But D&D is not a boardgame. As soon as a player wants to do something that is not covered by the RAW, DM fiat comes into effect. If it didn't, the standard answer to anything not covered by the rules would be, "you can't do that." IMO, a good DM will try to stay within the "spirit" of the rules when he makes a ruling that is not covered by the rules. He will even try to figure out a comparable mechanic to use. But if the rules don't cover it, he is going to have to make a decision. And when the rules do cover it, there are times when is still going to have to make a decision that "contradicts" the rules.

I play to have fun. There are many aspects of a game that impact fun. For me, abuse of the rules, even by DM Fiat, impacts the fun. However, I've seen more abuse of the rules by players than by DMs.

Experience playing this game requires the DM to step on it a couple of times. If everytime I made a bad ruling I had players up in arms crying about DM Fiat, I'd probably not DM. Thankfully, my players are willing to concede that I'm human too. We've been playing the game for a very long time and I have a pretty big group. They all seem happy, as a matter of fact they are usually the ones prodding me to run more games. I use DM Fiat ALL THE TIME, I just don't make it a point to screw players over. When I am screwing them over, they have enough confidence in me that they know that at some point the screw will let up. In other words there is a reason for the screw. I don't have to explain it to them everytime.

For those that have poor DMs or bad DMs, maybe you should talk to them and let them know what is going on. Depending on that you have a choice to make, stay or go. But if you stay at a bad game you have no one to blame but yourself.

I've stepped out of several games that I did not like, because I was not having fun. If I'm not having fun I'll let the DM know and give him a chance. If he is an asshat, I just go find another game, or start my own.

 

[buzz]

In either game the outcome is still at the "mercy" of the DM. In either system the DM does not have to tell the player that there are guards or where they are.

In D&D, if a character misses his Spot roll he doesn't see the guard(s). In the other game if the player misses the "agreed roll" he still doesn't see the guard(s). The outcome is the same. For all intents and purposes the guards fall under that "setting/situation creation and scene framing." The DM does not have to tell the players on either game where the guards are. So by carefully phrasing the "agreement" the DM can screw the players just as much.

I'm not sure how to re-word what I said before, because I guess I'm not being clear.

The GM cannot screw the players (in this way) in BW and similar conflict/intent systems. It doesn't matter where the guards are. If the GM agrees to, "If I make the roll, I do not get detected by the guards," then that's what happens on a successful roll. If he subverts that, he's not playing the game. It'd be equivalent to a D&D DM randomly declaring that you're now trying to roll under on 2d6 instead of roll over on d20. At that point, we're far beyond the scope of what's being discussed here.