Is DM fiat okay?

[Matt Snyder]

But like has already been said that is not DM Fiat, that is the DM being an asshat.

This isn't the case, D'karr. You have said that previously, but buzz and I have disagreed and tried to explain why.

The DM may or may not be acting abusively in those cases. But, either way, he's actually following the rules of D&D. And, in BOTH cases, he's using GM fiat.

So, asshat or not, he's playing "by the book." Whether he's an asshat depends on the situation, what his plans as GM are, what the player wants out of the situation, whether anyone's having fun, and so on. But, the mechanism by which the GM decides whether or not guards are around the corner is one of GM Fiat (as opposed to, say, conflict resolution agreement that Buzz hypothesized).

Obviously, we don't want to play with asshats. But, you keep pointing to bad GMing as "not fiat." This is wrong. Fiat can occur in both good and bad GMing.

You have indicated your preference is FOR GM fiat and FOR non-asshatery. Cool!

Contrariwise, I have stated my preference AGAINST GM fiat and FOR non-asshattery.

We are trying to demonstrate that GM Fiat can be both good and bad (it can) and that one person's preferences can be such that they dont' like GM Fiat even when it's "good".

 

[LostSoul]

I think there's a difference between the two methods of resolution, but it's hard to describe.

Let's say you're trying to break into the treasure room. The DM informs you that there's a guard post up above. You say, "I want to use Hide/Move Silently to sneak past them into the treasure room."

Cool, you make the check. Then you get into the treasure room, where there's another guard (it's written down on the DM's sheet). The room is lit, and there's no cover/concealment.

The DM says: "You sneak past the guard post, but once you get into the treasure room, you see another guard. He sees you. Roll for initiative."

In BW, I would consider this cheating.

 

[IcyCool]

In BW, I would consider this cheating.

How? You have "successfully snuck past the guard post and into the treasure room". Would you not now need to "successfully hide from the guard in the treasure room"?

 

[D'karr]

This isn't the case, D'karr. You have said that previously, but buzz and I have disagreed and tried to explain why.

The problem with the example is the following. D&D doesn't require an agreement between the player and the DM to resolve conflict/situations. As a matter of fact the game has certain situations in which the players don't get to roll the dice, the DM does, if he chooses.

If you don't want to make it obvious that something is about to pounce on the characters, or that they are about to step on a trap, or whatever then you can make the roll secretly for the player. What about the "Detect Secret Doors" ability of elfs. If you have to come to an agree with the player on anything, then haven't you by default given up the "secret."

The rules are pretty specific in some cases. Set a DC if the roll is equal to or higher than the DC then the conflict is resolved. So in the case of the Move Silently / Hide situation the DC should be set, if the player rolls equal or above the DC then he succeeds. If the DM decides that he wants to change that then he is in effect "cheating". Good or Bad it just boils down to that.

There are situations where I do want to or need to "cheat" and there are situations where I let the die fall where they may

I'd rather have D&D continue to operate under the assumptions that it has always operated. The DM is the final arbiter and needs to be fair. By the way I was just looking at my Basic D&D set (Moldvay) the other day and those two things were in there too. Asshatery aside, I believe D&D works best that way. My point has always been that, for D&D, DM Fiat is okay.

If you prefer games that don't have that, that is fine. They're just not D&D.

But the only examples I see here of DM Fiat are the ones where the DM is using his ability to screw the players. Then these examples are touted as the reason why DM Fiat is bad. I disagree. Those are just examples of extremes, just as if the DM in the "agreement" game set the resolution roll "too high" would be an extreme.

 

[Mallus]

D&D doesn't require an agreement between the player and the DM to resolve conflict/situations.

It doesn't require an explicitly stated agreement, no.

But the entire game is built around a series of unstated, underlying agreements that shape the context for the action. Like EL/CR...

 

[buzz]

But like has already been said that is not DM Fiat, that is the DM being an asshat.

Sure, but my point was just that there's nothing in the rules that says the DM can't do this. In some instances, I've seen tons of DM/GM advice that specifically tells you to do this sort of thing if it "makes for a better story."

In a conflict/intent system, it simply cannot happen. The BW, e.g., specifically says you cannot do this stuff ("Let It Ride").

EDIT: Matt totally beat me to it.

 

[D'karr]

It doesn't require an explicitly stated agreement, no.

But the entire game is built around a series of unstated, underlying agreements that shape the context for the action. Like EL/CR...

EL/CR are not an agreement. They are a planning guideline. A poor one, but a guidline nonetheless. What agreeement does CR have with the player?

The assumption from the player is the DM will not, capriciously, kill my carefully crafted meat shield. The DMs agreement is usually, I will challenge my players. CR serves as a guideline for challenging the players but there is not agreement there. The player has no control of that end of the equation. The player's only control is if he trusts the DM enough not to, capriciously, kill his carefully crafted meat shield.

If the DM puts a Great Wyrm, Black Dragon in a swamp and the 3rd level party chooses to attack, then their carefully crafted meat bags will suffer. There is no contract to prevent stupidity.

 

[buzz]

How? You have "successfully snuck past the guard post and into the treasure room". Would you not now need to "successfully hide from the guard in the treasure room"?

Because, typically, in BW your intent of "sneak past the guards into the treasure room" holds firm if your roll was successful. The GM has to "Let It Ride." Ditto if you failed the roll. Your failure holds; you can't re-test your Stealth skill over and over again until you get what you want.

You'd only re-test if your intent only covered one guard. This probably wouldn't happen, as intents tend to be a bit more macro than tasks are in D&D.

(You can do dungeon-crawling in BW; it just doesn't work exactly the same. You certainly wouldn't roll to "sneak past all the monsters and get all the treasure," as that's *too* macro. Still, you'd be rolling for broader goals than in a typical D&D game.)

 

[jdrakeh]

Given how the conversation over this topic generally turns into a series of heated arguments, I'm pleasantly surprised with how the poll is going... I would have guessed that the results would be running neck and neck.

 

[Mallus]

The assumption from the player is the DM will not, capriciously, kill my carefully crafted meat shield. The DMs agreement is usually, I will challenge my players

That's one of the agreements I'm talking about; the one that says (or unsays, since its largely unstated) the players will encounter appropriate challenges.

They might willingly seek out inappropriate and unavoidably leathal challenges, and thems the breaks. But the DM won't spring impossible challenges on the players.