Is DM fiat okay?

[Lonely Tylenol]

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!)

You would like Donjon.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.

Two questions:
1. Do you think your definition of fiat, as expressed in the context of the above quote, is the only definition present among the participants of this thread? I've provided other definitions above, some of which are incommensurable with each other.
2. Since the original question was essentially "Fiat: Y/N", doesn't that undermine the value of discussing the degree of fiat that would be acceptable, assuming that some is okay but too much isn't?

As far as both of these questions are concerned, if the original post had been "Is injecting morphine okay? Y/N", my response would have been something like "well, that depends. Do I need it to solve my problems with terrible pain, and is it being administered in the proper dose?" In other words, I would answer "no" to the first question, and "yes" to the second. We haven't yet decided what we mean by fiat, and different people are obviously using different definitions. The degree of fiat acceptable, once we have a fixed definition, is not something that is taken into account by the yes/no question.

It's just not something that lends itself to a yes or no answer without further clarification. I might, for the sake of argument, be concerned that perhaps DM fiat may be used to make the game less fun rather than more fun, and is therefore something I can't lend unqualified support. (the original question demands unqualified support or rejection) You're suggesting that this position represents a total disdain for arbitrary rulings, in favour of a completely rule-determined game, equating that with the "no" option, and then delaring the "no" option to be nonsensical. I'd say that's a straw man. Of course, the format of the original question framed the discussion in this way, which is the problem I had with it from the beginning. You can't boil a complicated issue down into a binary choice, nor should you.

 

[buzz]

First off, I didn't vote. Second off, here's my long, boring answer.

Croth, I'm sort of assuming that what you're really asking is, "Does DM fiat bother you, or do you not mind?"

If we're talking strictly about D&D (since you said "DM"), then I'd say that it doesn't... entirely. It's written into the rules that the DM is allowed to override and overrule; the books advise using good judgement and being impartial, but the DM's role as "final arbiter" is still made plain as the ink on the paper.

If we were talking about a system where the GM had no such power (e.g., Burning Empires), then I'd obviously be bothered, as I'd know the game was not intended to be run that way.

In general, I'm not a big fan of resolution-by-fiat or GM-is-god. It seems, to me, to defeat the whole purpose of a having a ruleset in the first place. There's a certain irony in the fact that GURPS and HERO, the most complex and rules-heavy games on my shelf, are also the ones that give GMs the most lattitude to wholly ignore the rules at the drop of a hat.

 

[buzz]

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

It's a strawman. Lack of GM Fiat != lack of choice. Fiat is only necessary when the system can't support what you're trying to do. In D&D, you need fiat in order to resolve most siuations that don't invovle combat. In other systems like The Pool or Burning Wheel, the rules cover everything.

 

[DonTadow]

I"m a big fan of DM Fiat and DM documentation. In other words, I do not like to just arbitrarily make decisions as DM without having something to base it on. Once I make a ruling I usually like to note it and file it in a form accessible to the party, so that my rulings dont seem like i'm some kind of god changing my mind at a whim. There has to be good reasoning when the DM decides to change the rules and though it shouldnt be explained in game, it should be explained at some point if a character has some serious questions.

On that same notion I dont appreciate if a player has to ask me about every ruling.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

It's a strawman. Lack of GM Fiat != lack of choice. Fiat is only necessary when the system can't support what you're trying to do. In D&D, you need fiat in order to resolve most siuations that don't invovle combat. In other systems like The Pool or Burning Wheel, the rules cover everything.

The Pool is a good example. We played a game that could have been entitled "zombie pirate apocalypse" using that system. It really worked nicely, although I should point out that there are still aspects of the game that aren't covered by the rules: specifically, the number of GM dice for a task. My friend and I worked out a sketch of some extra traits for characters that would provide a method by which those dice were determined based on whether the task was in the character's idiom or not. So if you were a daring swashbucker, a daring attempt to buckle a swash would be an easier task than if you were trying to attempt something inherently cowardly. I should dig that up and post it somewhere...

 

[buzz]

The Pool is a good example. We played a game that could have been entitled "zombie pirate apocalypse" using that system. It really worked nicely, although I should point out that there are still aspects of the game that aren't covered by the rules: specifically, the number of GM dice for a task.

Yeah, I've only read it, so I can't speak about specific issues ilke this. In general, though, when you focus on conflicts and narrative control instead of task resolution, you suddenly see the need for GM fiat fade away. IOW, fiat is not a nceessary part of the roleplaying experience.

E.g., in HERO, whether a PC is able to convince a jury of their innocence is ultimately up to the GM. Sure, they can make a high Conversation or Oratory roll, but that doesn't tell me anything other than he did a good job speaking. Whether that roll means the jury buys his argument is pretty much up to fiat.

In BW, the roll I'm making is resolving my intent, ergo, as a GM, I'm not making the decision.

 

[Matt Snyder]

You would like Donjon.

Donjon's pretty cool. I'm MUCH more fond of The Shadow of Yesterday. It's among my favorite RPGs overall.

 

[Matt Snyder]

Yeah, I've only read it, so I can't speak about specific issues ilke this. In general, though, when you focus on conflicts and narrative control instead of task resolution, you suddenly see the need for GM fiat fade away. IOW, fiat is not a nceessary part of the roleplaying experience.

What buzz said! Right on. He's saying what I took far too many words to say. Nice work, Buzz!

 

[Mallus]

It's a strawman. Lack of GM Fiat != lack of choice.

It sure does when you're conceiving of the game(s) the way I do.

Fiat is only necessary when the system can't support what you're trying to do.

And that describes all the RPG systems I've played under. Moreover, its built into them, re: your comment on the irony of GURPS and Hero.

Then again, I can't speak from gaming experiences I didn't have.

In D&D, you need fiat in order to resolve most siuations that don't invovle combat.

On this we agree.

In other systems like The Pool or Burning Wheel, the rules cover everything.

I hear a lot of good about Burning Wheel. It's one of the systems whose rules having direct bearing on the game narrative, right (like that Dogs in the Vinyard thing I also keep hearing about?) And it also distributes narrative authority among the players. Or am I mistaken?

If that true, then those rules might just cover everything, but the end-result is a game I suspect I wouldn't like (though I may be wrong...).

A large part of the enjoyment I get from RPG play comes from the limited narrative authority traditionally confered to players (coupled with a rule set that encourages on-the-fly human arbitrated task resolution). I want my ability to affect the game world to come primarily, if not entirely, through my character actions. Out another way, when I play, I want to explore the world, which I can't do if I also have a part in creating it. Does that make sense?