Is DM fiat okay?

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Perhaps a more revealing poll Q would be "do you trust your DM to use fiat fairly?".

...and if you don't why are you gaming with him?

 

[D'karr]

Actually it does. From www.dictionary.com:

Yes it does. However, you then have to look at the definition of arbitrary if you want to keep the discussion in context.

2. decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.

In other words, any ruling a DM makes, that is not covered by the rules is arbitrary, since he is the final arbiter for the game. That does not necessarily imply the other definitions of arbitrary.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Answer: Because it makes the game more fun.

It only makes the game more fun if, in the case of this DM, at this point in time, the entertainment value of the game is enhanced by DM fiat. There are lots of cases (read examples above) in which DM fiat makes the game less fun.

 

[Melan]

A degree of DM judgement is required to run a proper game. That's why D&D has a human moderator - to go beyond the dictates of the rulebooks.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

I've read this thread three times and I still don't understand why anyone would say "no".

 

[Mallus]

That's why D&D has a human moderator - to go beyond the dictates of the rulebooks.

Exactly. Thought I'd phrase it as "RPG's use human moderators to allow the players options not explicitly described by the rules."

It's a trade-off. The more players want the freedom to 'just do things', the more the game relies on a human arbiter/interpreter.

If you want to play the game where the only options available to the players come from a small, managable, fully described set, that's fine. But if that's the case, I'd rather being playing chess, Monopoly, or Risk.

What I get out of RPG's is the freedom to solve outrageous probems with equally outrageous solutions. And that depends entirely on a human moderator.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I've read this thread three times and I still don't understand why anyone would say "no".

Well, there's no option for "yes, when you mean one thing by 'fiat' and no, when you mean another thing," so I haven't voted. If you define it one way, I'll vote "yes", and if you define it another way, I'll vote "no". So those who have voted "no" are probably running on a different definition than you.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

If you want to play the game where the only options available to the players come from a small, managable, fully described set, that's fine.

Hold on, is anyone actually arguing for this position, or is this a straw man?

 

[Matt Snyder]

I answered "No." I recognize the option of choosing "yes" and fully understand why people would prefer that, for example. It's perfectly viable and fun, particularly if everyone's on board.

However, I do not well understand how people cannot comprehend the "No" option at all. There are means to play by which GM fiat can be avoided. Some of these means are unconventional and quite different from standard play. It's not everyone's cup of tea; again, it's a matter of preference.

I will attempt a quick stab at what I mean: I understand GM fiat to describe the means by which uncodified decisions are made. By default, most game groups defer to the judgment of the GM. This is fine, but not required nor "definitional" to role-playing games.

Here is an example:

Suppose your D&D characters are after some kind of bauble that's important for the adventure. Let's say it's "supposed" to be inside a castle or something. You're not sure where it is, so you enter the castle and start looking. You enter what appears to be an "important" room -- the castle lord's vault, let's say.

You find a chest. You tell the GM the following: "Ok, I think the bauble's in the chest. I'm going to use my Rogue's skills to pick the lock -- I check for traps first, of course (roll). Ok, now I'd like to open the lock (roll)."

At this point in time, ther are a number of ways this can happen:

First, the bauble COULD be in the chest. The GM knows it, you don't. If you open the lock, voila! The bauble is yours. Neat. No GM fiat. The GM didn't decide anything "arbitrarily." You had a challenge. You overcame it with a skill roll. Cool beans. This is pretty normal play.

Second, the bauble could NOT be in the chest. The GM knows it, you don't. Even if you open the lock, no bauble. Boo hoo. But, it isn't aribitrary. The GM just had a scenario created, and this chest didn't contain the bauble in his notes. No big deal, and again pretty normal.

Third, the bauble "WAS" in the chest, but the GM decides right then and there it's too easy for your group to get it at this time, so he "moves" it. Boo hoo, no bauble. THIS IS GM FIAT. (MY preference: I think this sucks!)

Fourth, the bauble "WASN'T" in the chest. But, given the circumstances (maybe, for example, it's getting late in "real world" time and the adventure needs to be over soon) the GM decides right then and there to "move" it into the chest. Yay. You get the bauble. THIS IS GM FIAT. (Again, MY preference: I think this sucks!).

Fifth, the bauable MAY or MAY NOT be in the chest. The GM doesn't know and neither do you. But, you both decide that it'd be a pretty cool place for the bauble to be, and entirely plausible given the environment and adventure. SO, the in reaction to your annoucement, the GM says, "Ok, cool. If you make this skill roll, plus another search roll, you'll find the bauble." Sweet! You just convinced the GM to agree to your terms. THIS IS NOT GM FIAT. (MY prefernce: I think this rocks!)

So, you can see that GM fiat really boils down to who makes decisions, particuarly "on the fly." And, you can further see that there are means -- whether you prefer them or not -- to remove GM fiat from the game entirely. YOu and your group can choose OTHER means than GM fiat to resolve decisions. One way is to set it up so that you make a request, the GM approves the possible outcomes of that request, and the dice decide what happens. That;'s is pretty cool stuff!

 

[Mallus]

Hold on, is anyone actually arguing for this position, or is this a straw man?

I don't really think it's a straw man argument... I was trying to describe the only way I could see a game without fiat working.

What I wanted to get across is that its a trade-off. More player freedom = more DM fiat, less player freedom (assuming that a rule set can only thoroughly describe a limited set of actions) = less fiat.