Is DM fiat okay?

[IcyCool]

See, that's just it. In the examples I gave, the DM isn't altering the die rolls at all. He can run your Hide and Move Silently checks 100% by the book, and you can succeed at them all day long... but that doesn't stop him from having something happen that makes those successes fruitless.

I guess I don't see the distinction you are trying to make. You give an example of a DM being an ass (and not using the rules, because you certainly seem to be implying that the "all-seeing guard" doesn't have to make a spot check), and when you are given similar examples for BM, you claim that because the DM isn't using the rules, those examples aren't relevent.

If the DM decides to screw the player out of that success, he isn't really following the rules of D&D anymore, is he?

If the guard sees the PC without having to roll spot, then the DM doesn't seem to be following the rules, does he?

And I'm not saying that D&D is built to screw players. I'm just pointing out that all you generally resolve in D&D is a specific task. "Did I move to point X without making noise?" "Did I open this lock?" "Did I jump 20 feet?" "Did I change his disposition to 'helpful'?" What each of those actions mean in terms of your intent is only accomplished through the accretion of successful tasks and some negotiation with the DM. Your intent is almost never included in the resolution mechanic.

I would say that there certainly are times (a majority in fact) where your intent isn't included in the resolution mechanic. That's what you use role-playing for, to convey your intent. And before someone misreads that, I'm not saying that you don't role-play in BW. But yes, it sounds like BW uses a less "granular" resolution mechanic than D&D.

* "You made your roll, but a guard suddenly runs into the courtyard on his way to the latrine and sees you."

So why are you assuming that the player doesn't get a roll to hide when the guard shows up?

* "You made your Diplomacy roll, so he's now 'helpful'... but not that helpful. Forget it."

I have a burning hate for "social combat", luckily, D&D's system for it sucks, and leaves some room for the GM and player to work with it. Which means, of course, that you need to actually talk about what you want to happen.

* "You made the Jump check, but the young lady happened to be looking the other way at the time. Sorry."

Not a system problem, not a GM fiat problem, this is a bad GM problem. The GM should have told the player that it wasn't going to work. Whether he is lying to the player with the BW system, or he's creatively "omitting information" in D&D, the problem lies with the GM.

To me, it's a very different play experience.

It is different, but I don't think the difference is as great as you think.

As long as it's not bothering Crothian. I just felt bad about hijacking the thread.

Well, we are still discussing GM fiat, we're just whittling it down a bit I think.

If you ever get a chance to play something like BW or TSoY, I recommend it. It'll probably do a better job than I am of explaining all this.

I make it a point to play as many different systems as I can, and The Forge games have been in my queue for a while. BW and Dogs in the Vineyard are a couple that I want to at least try.

 

[D'karr]

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").

And I agree with that advice. DM Fiat used judiciously can make for a better story and game. D&D benefits from it. I don't think anybody has been arguing that D&D stipulates that the DM can't use DM fiat. The game is built on that assumption. And that assumption is fine.

BW, is a different system. Is specifically states that a DM can't do it. That is fine too.

I would not want to DM in a system where I can't "improvise" to make for a better story.

 

[Mark CMG]

It would seem that the only reason a game would need a facilitator of some kind would be if the rules require some sort of arbitration. If there is no expectation of fiat, the rules can stand for the players without the need of a DM/GM/etc.

 

[buzz]

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 difference is that BW isn't big on player secrets. I think, odds are, that the player will know about the secret door, even if his PC doesn't. I know that sounds weird, but, again, BW wasn't built around the dungeon crawl. There's probably a way to do it, but I haven't done much dungeon-crawling with BW.

I'd rather have D&D continue to operate under the assumptions that it has always operated.

I'm cool with that. I'm not advocating change, just describing another methodology.

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.

I dunno how to explain it any better without sitting you down and playing. A BW GM simply can't do this.

 

[buzz]

I would not want to DM in a system where I can't "improvise" to make for a better story.

Trust me, you can.

EDIT: In fact, you have to. The players have a lot more narrative control than they do in D&D. Ergo, the burden is not entirely upon the GM. BW pushes players really hard.

EDIT 2: Sorry again, Crothian. I've totally bogarted your thread. Maybe folks should start another thread if they want to talk about all this conflict/BW stuff some more.

 

[buzz]

I guess I don't see the distinction you are trying to make. You give an example of a DM being an ass (and not using the rules, because you certainly seem to be implying that the "all-seeing guard" doesn't have to make a spot check), and when you are given similar examples for BM, you claim that because the DM isn't using the rules, those examples aren't relevent.

In my estimation, my D&D examples did use the rules. For example...

If the guard sees the PC without having to roll spot, then the DM doesn't seem to be following the rules, does he?

Well, you need cover or concealment in order to use Hide. If you're in a closed room, or in the middle of a courtyard, and the DM gives his fish-checking or latrine-using guard a torch, *poof*, you can't use Hide, and he doesn't really need a Spot check. It would admittedly be more dickly if you were in a room with a desk or table and he refused to let you use them to Hide, true.

But yes, it sounds like BW uses a less "granular" resolution mechanic than D&D.

It's a little more "macro," yes.

I have a burning hate for "social combat", luckily, D&D's system for it sucks, and leaves some room for the GM and player to work with it. Which means, of course, that you need to actually talk about what you want to happen.

Oh, trust me, you talk. You talk yer figgin' arse off in BW. You have to roleplay every move in a social combat. The dice are just guiding you. (And, you don't have to use the social combat all the time.)

I understand you, though, as my D&D group hates the idea as well. All I can say is, play it sometime if you get the chance.

Not a system problem, not a GM fiat problem, this is a bad GM problem. The GM should have told the player that it wasn't going to work. Whether he is lying to the player with the BW system, or he's creatively "omitting information" in D&D, the problem lies with the GM.

In my example, the DM could just as easily have said, "Whatever. She's not impressed." It doesn't matter why, the point is the player has no control, because their intent isn't part of the roll.

It is different, but I don't think the difference is as great as you think.

Well, having played both, I can tell you that it is pretty different. One isn't necessarily better than another; they're just different. Granted, I'm obviously more enamored with one than the other right now...

I make it a point to play as many different systems as I can, and The Forge games have been in my queue for a while. BW and Dogs in the Vineyard are a couple that I want to at least try.

Excellent! I highly recommend both BW and DitV.

 

[D'karr]

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.

Well, but I'd argue that most players/DMs have this sort of tacit agreement no matter what the game. I'd grant a big exception to Call of Cthulhu. At least you know going in that you are getting screwed...

The 3.5 DMG does spell out some guidelines, so the agreement is not tacit at least in that respect. And even though a large portion of encounters should be appropriate there is room for more. The challenge rating section does specify that adventruing parties can encounter overpowering challenges. The parties response should be to run away. In practice this does not happen enough and we see all kinds of threads here about it... Many bothan spies died trying to get this information to us.

 

[IcyCool]

In my estimation, my D&D examples did use the rules. For example...

We'll just have to agree to disagree then. Maybe when your honeymoon with BW is over we can revisit the topic? Of course, your opinion may not have changed by then, and mine is likely to never change. Such is life, eh?

Excellent! I highly recommend both BW and DitV.

I've heard good stuff about both, so after the Earthdawn campaign wraps up, the 7th sea campaign will start, and after that, some sort of space opera (maybe using the Alternity system). I'll have to squeeze these in at some point.

 

[RFisher]

Simple answer: yes.

I'd go so far as to say DM fiat is a core "essential" of the RPG experience (leaving aside the current trend in some indie RPG's towards more distributed narrative authority).

That's the way I feel. My current "unified field theory" of gaming is:

• The DM sets the scene
• The players say what their characters do
• The DM decides the outcome of those actions
• Repeat

A more complete version would include players asking questions in order to better understand the situation & advocating their characters' success.

Generally, step 3 is augmented by: If the DM feels the outcome isn't essentially certain, he decides the chance of various outcomes & makes a die/dice roll compatible with those chances.

Any additional rules are just a framework & some common jargon. The fun can be augmented by having some rules around the areas that you want the game to focus on. e.g. TFT: combat; CoC: sanity; Pendragon: personality traits & passions; &c.

It's "let's pretend" with the added bonus of a dispassionate referee. Without the living rulebook that is DM fiat, it's not what I call a role-playing game.

(Hmm..."dispassionate" is maybe not wholly the right word--at least when I'm behind the screen. Unless maybe you look at it a bit like the player who claims his character is Neutral because he is careful to always perform an equal number of Lawful & Chaotic acts.)

 

[Hussar]

RFisher, instead of "dispassionate", perhaps, disengaged?

In other words, the DM has no actual stake in whether or not the player succeeds. A good DM will actually take player intent into account when looking at task resolution and play to that intent.

Granted, D&D does not actually force DM's to do this and Buzz's examples do make a lot of sense to me. There is absolutely nothing in the rules that says that the fair maiden should be impressed with my jumping skills. BW apparently does tie intent into the deal. D&D ONLY resolves the jump action, it is completely silent on the fair maiden's reactions.

And that's where fiat comes in, both good and bad. Since the rules are silent on whether or not Fair Maiden is impressed, the DM has to adjudicate, and the rules do allow for that. It then boils down to whichever result the DM feels makes a better narrative. The player really has no control in the matter.

Honestly, the DM may not even be an asshat when he says that the Fair Maiden is unimpressed. He could have some other reason entirely and it may be an entirely good reason. If I'm understanding Buzz correctly, in BR, the player actually has creative control over the game and can dictate to some degree that his actions will have additional consequences. There is nothing in any reading of the Jump skill that will allow me to use the Jump skill to change someone's reactions.

I admit, I am intrigued by this. I like the idea of the players having some control over the story. It would be an extremely different game from D&D.