Is DM fiat okay?

[Professor Phobos]

It is impossible to run a game without at least some GM fiat.

I would contend, as well, that the only possible problem with GM fiat comes with a bad GM, and since you shouldn't be playing with a bad GM anyway, there is no problem with fiat.

 

[D'karr]

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.

We do understand each other. The fact still remains that the DM does not have to agree to the "contract".

The DM could easily say, "that's not possible, you don't know where the guards are."

Then the player can decide whether he wants to perform the action or not.

In D&D the DM inactively hides the guards. A missed spot check can put a guard right on the characters tail. In the other game he has to actively hide them. A missed "agreement" roll can put a guard right on the characters tail. The net result is the same.

Player: "If I make the roll, I do not get detected by the guards."
DM: "That's not possible, you don't know where the guards are."
Player: "If I make the roll, I detect the guards."
DM: "You can detect the guards, if they are close enough."
Player: "But I want to detect the guards."
DM: "That's not possible, you don't know where the guards are."​

This is where the whole game breaks for me. It becomes a battle of the lawyers. I know I'm being facetious in my example but that is what I mean when I say that abuse is the problem, not DM Fiat. The player is also trying to abuse the system to achieve an outcome that is clearly not possible. With reasonable people that game would be fun too. With unreasonable people it doesn't matter what game it is; it's not going to be fun.

Some people want to relay their stories of abuse and "chuck the baby with the bath water." My response is still the same. For D&D DM Fiat is appropriate, in many cases needed. In other games it depends. However, just the fact that the DM has that responsibility does not imply that he will abuse it.

 

[Brimshack]

I actually find the question strange. When the GM has the final say, he has fiat, and there is nothig to debate. I am often disturbed by GMs who pretend they aren't making judgement calls, because often that means they simply aren't acknowledging options that are clearly available to them. I would rather the options were acknowledged and the GM took responsibility for his decisions instead of playing rules fundamentalist and pretending the books dictate his decisions.

I think the real question for me at any rate is what constitutes reasonable use of fiat. For one thing, having the final word does not mean ignoring the input of the other players. A GM ought to be able to listen to the players before making a decision. Advance notice is good too. If a GM intends to play fast and loose with the rules the players need to be advised of this at the outset of a campaign. If a GM intends to stick as closely to te stated rules as he can manage, that too should be explained to the players. And GMs making decisions which substantially change the options available to players should announce these well in advance of the moment they become relevant. Players should not have to find out things how things work after they have made decisions on the basis of assumptions now contrary to fact.

I also tend to favor keeping the wilder judgement calls to the character and situation process. I recently played in one campaign and a few games in another wheere each GM reserved significant options for the ongoing pay. One GM would arbirtrarily lower the HD of monsters and even their bonuses to damage in the middle of a battle. It's not that he decided to attack us with a bably Bullette; he simply realized it's normal damage would kill the character in one more attack, so suddenly it was too tired to get its damage bonus. ...took a lot of the fun out of the challenge. The other GM used fate points to enable him to completely alter the circumstances of an enouncter. You simply spent a fate point and the GM decided how much he wanted to change the circumstances, could be a little, could be a lot. So, the main challenge of the game was resolved, not by good play, but by affectively calling for a Deus ex machina. ...also took a lot of the challenge out of the game for me.

Both of these examples strike me as bad use of GM's fiat, because they effectively amount to a GM introduced resolution to the game. I am more interested in seeing a GM use fiat to construct an interesting scenario and provide me with a set of tools to resolve it. I'm not too concerned about how fast and loose he is with the rules as he generates that set up, but I want it to result in a challenge for ME and the other players, not a token challenge that will be resolved on his own initiative.

 

[buzz]

Player: "If I make the roll, I do not get detected by the guards."
DM: "That's not possible, you don't know where the guards are."
Player: "If I make the roll, I detect the guards."
DM: "You can detect the guards, if they are close enough."
Player: "But I want to detect the guards."
DM: "That's not possible, you don't know where the guards are."​

Well, I'd agree that the above situation is not going to work in any system, as you're basically describing a GM who has created undetectable uber-guards and is staunchly refusing any intent that changes that fact. FWIW, at least I know he's doing this ahead of time in the conflict/intent method, and can just not roll and try and figure out another way to get what I want. In D&D, the DM doesn't have to tell me any of this up front; I could roll and he can ignore the result and my character is caught. You can hear the train coming down the tracks.

With unreasonable people it doesn't matter what game it is; it's not going to be fun.

Okay, but again, I think then we're going far beyond the scope of the GM fiat issue. Nobody is arguing that a game can solve a faulty social contract, but I was assuming that we were talking about a functioning group as a basis for assessing GM fiat.

For D&D DM Fiat is appropriate, in many cases needed. In other games it depends. However, just the fact that the DM has that responsibility does not imply abuse.

Right, and I'm not arguing that. My posts were initially in response to the claim that GM fiat is part-and-parcel of all roleplaying, and I didn't agree, and had examples from existing games to share.

I would argue, though, that the more latitude you give the GM, the more prone the game is going to be to abuse, even form the well-intentioned. The simple fact that the DMG, DMG2, the latest Dungeoncraft article from Monte Cook, and a host of DM'ing advice written over the years specifically address the issue of fairness is demonstrative of the enormous game-ruining potential of DM fiat.

Sure, you can say, "Well, don't play with crappy DMs, then." This is easier said than done, as the many tales of cat-piss men you can find on gaming fora will attest to.

Ergo, I, personally, really like how a lot of new RPGs handle things with more checks and balances, as well as explicit procedures for intents and outcomes. I think it minimizes the dependence on the skill level of the GM. To me, that's pretty cool. It's gets the system-handling out of the way so we can focus on the game being played.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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?

I think it's more like: the stakes are on the table prior to rolling.

 

[buzz]

I think the real question for me at any rate is what constitutes reasonable use of fiat.

This is, by far, the relevant question to be asking w/r/t games like D&D. DM Fiat is written into the rules. The question is, how do you use that power responsibly to make a great game? As I mentioned above, a good chunk of the useful DM advice from, e.g., WotC and Monte Cook focus on this, because it's vital to successful D&D.

So, Croth's initial question might be better phrased as, "What kinds of DM fiat are you okay with?" or "What kinds do you think make for a good game?"

Great post, Brimshack.

 

[buzz]

I think it's more like: the stakes are on the table prior to rolling.

Dang. I wish I could have said it that succinctly.

 

[Brimshack]

Thanks Buzz

 

[Crothian]

So, Croth's initial question might be better phrased as, "What kinds of DM fiat are you okay with?" or "What kinds do you think make for a good game?"

I've actually found that simple yes no questions provide a lot better discussion then questions like that. People seem more likely to post when they have an answer outside the spectrum of the question.

 

[Felix]

I've actually found that simple yes no questions provide a lot better discussion then questions like that.

If only because people who have a definition agreed upon have nothing to disagree about?