Is DM fiat okay?

[Lonely Tylenol]

I think people can define the term for themselves.

So what you're asking, then, is whether they agree with their own definition of DM fiat?

 

[Crothian]

So what you're asking, then, is whether they agree with their own definition of DM fiat?

No, I'm asking them if they think it is okay.

 

[diaglo]

i prefer the Spyder myself.

 

[Stalker0]

I think people can define the term for themselves.

Then there's no need to have a poll, just ask the question and make it a discussion.

I say yes. While I agree that the DMs should have some logic to their decisions, fiat allows them to get far more creative than the rules can allow. If the DM wants to create a human villian thats immune to magic because of some crazy experiment gone wrong, I'm fine with that. Otherwise the game gets predicatable the more of the rules the players are aware of.

 

[Felix]

I think the players should be informed of deviations from the RAW and should give their consent.

Should the players be informed of the class abilities, magic items, templates, Divine Powers, Hit Points, Saving Throws, Spell Resistance, movement rate, bank account size, and otherworldly allies that might by RAW allow an NPC to do something that might very well seem otherwise RAW-impossible?

How are the players to tell the difference between that which is RAW-but-seems-impossible and something that's not RAW unless they know everything the DM knows?

And what's the point of playing if you won't allow the DM to run his world without nosing in on everything?

---

Crothian,

It would be easier on us if you would provide a standard definition of "DM fiat". For all any of us know, these could be the definitions we're currently arguing over:

"DM fiat means the DM decides what the players know and don't know, and thus is empowered to tell them when what they attempt succeeds or fails, regardless of what the players believe should have happened."

"DM fiat means the DM is allowed to change any rule without prior consideration, notification, or consistency."

The implications of the two definitions will render many and varied opinions; two people who don't disagree on how a DM should act might disagree in this thread because of the lack of a standard definition of "DM Fiat".

 

[Crothian]

Then there's no need to have a poll, just ask the question and make it a discussion.

We are doing that too!!

 

[Crothian]

It would be easier on us if you would provide a standard definition of "DM fiat". For all any of us know, these could be the definitions we're currently arguing over

Then people would just complain and argue about the defintion I used. :\

 

[Gold Roger]

I don't think an exact definition of DM fiat is needed. Just asume your not playing with jerks and then think wether under those circumstances the general concept of DM fiat is ok for you.

I mean, when I ask, do you like pizza, do you ask what kind, or do you just say what you think of the concept pizza?

 

[Aurora]

Then people would just complain and argue about the defintion I used. :\

LOL. Good point!

I think DM fiat is fine- if the DM is a fair one. During sessions, I find it perfectly fair to make a ruling and then move on instead of spending eons pouring over materials. In our games, that is the way we do it at least. Speeds up gameplay since we dont have a lot of time. If something is questionable, it will be researched, discussed and if it ever comes up again may be ruled differently, but that is all done after the fact. Luckily, these issues don't come up all that often. It all depends on the DM though. If he or she is an ass who doesn't care about player input- then if I were a player I would probably fight a ruling if I thought it were unfair.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Should the players be informed of the class abilities, magic items, templates, Divine Powers, Hit Points, Saving Throws, Spell Resistance, movement rate, bank account size, and otherworldly allies that might by RAW allow an NPC to do something that might very well seem otherwise RAW-impossible?

How are the players to tell the difference between that which is RAW-but-seems-impossible and something that's not RAW unless they know everything the DM knows?

And what's the point of playing if you won't allow the DM to run his world without nosing in on everything?

Because you talked about it before you started playing and the DM agreed that he wouldn't add anything that flaunted the rules. I think that if the players are bound to the rules of the game, all the players should be, including the DM. Just because you're the banker doesn't mean you can cheat at Monopoly. This is not to say that the DM can't write up new monsters, or magic items, or whatnot, but he should use the guidelines provided for doing so.