Is DM fiat okay?

[Jdvn1]

Very simple, do you think DM fiat is okay? Discuss

Sure, as long as the players agree it's reasonable.

 

[Kaodi]

I'm So Sorry...

For hijacking this thread, albeit momentarily...

But a Tiny creature has hijacked PirateCat's avatar! Egads!

And, err, yes, DM Fiat is OK. Now back to your regular scheduled programming.

 

[IcyCool]

Yes. You wouldn't need a GM otherwise.

 

[Zhaleskra]

Sure. But stating that people are having problems because all people suffer from a reverse video-game effect as a fact tends to generate... unpleasantness.

I suppose I should have used "feeling words" in there too, as you probably noticed in the rest of the post, since I did not intend to imply that this was an "all new players/all long-time GMs" situation. From experience, I know that incompatible playing styles leads to some or all participants having no fun. My preference is immersive and my most recent group was decidedly hack and slash. Which is not to say there weren't opportunites for immersion, just that they were a lot shorter than the "action" scenes.

 

[Ambrus]

The less obvious the fiat, the better.

QFT

 

[Psion]

I think people can define the term for themselves.

Mark, is that you?

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I voted yes. It's D&D, not checkers.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

DM Fiat allows DM's to say, "I have a reason for this, so quit second guessing the NPC's ability to do X, which you think he shouldn't be able to do, and move on. Jones, it's your character's initiative; what do you do?" It protects the game from belligerent players.

Okay, I think we're zeroing in on the disconnect here. To use an analogy to a CCG, I don't really think of the DM's privilege as the only member of the table to play with his cards in his hand, rather than on the table, to be an example of DM fiat. I would consider DM fiat to be if the DM were to be altering his cards depending on what he saw in the players' hands, if he didn't like the way things were looking to go.

The reason you don't second-guess the DM is because you trust him not to be altering his cards, because you believe he's playing by the rules. If the DM is exercising fiat, you don't know whether he's playing by the rules or not, and may be justified in second-guessing him.

The DM has an advantage over the players because he can conceal his hand while observing the players' hands. This is a necessary part of the game. Otherwise, the DM could never surprise or confound the players and the whole thing would just turn into a die-rolling exercise. However, along with this advantage comes the temptation to swap the cards in his hand for other cards, pulling out the "whoops, he's immune to your acid" card or the "I know you rolled a 35, but Diplomacy doesn't seem to work with this guy" card whenever he wants to. If you know your DM does not exercise fiat, you know that he drew those cards fair and square.

To break from the analogy, in other words, those characters have good reasons for being unaffected by your spells, skills, or whatever, and if you were to ask the DM to show you those reasons, you would see that they are playing by the rules.

Essentially, the way I read it, DM fiat is when you break from the ability to honestly show your DM's notes to a player for checking. Not that I think any DM should have to. But an indepenent observer should be able to ask you the question "why didn't his diplomacy check work," and get an answer that would satisfy a reasonable player.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Such unilateralism can only end in quagmire, civil war, and dishonorable retreat... unless the PCs give the DM the okay ahead of time that fiat will be okay with them.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

DM Fiat: The DMs right to rule based on his own judgment, superseeding raw.

Quick, simple, broad, scetchy. A concept. Do you agree with the concept y/n. Would you agree, but only if the concept is carried out a certain way? Then add comments.

Actually, I don't think this covers at least one of the above definitions. Specifically, that the DM should arbitrate solutions to problems that do not appear to be covered by the RAW, but otherwise follow the RAW. That's a version of fiat that was probably more common in earlier editions: there isn't a rule, so the DM makes one up and everyone lives with it. This could be contrasted to: there isn't a rule, so the DM makes one up, and everyone decides whether they like it, with majority consensus determining what the ruling will be. I have seen both the former and latter systems in actual play. I wouldn't really call the latter DM fiat, since he doesn't have veto power.

So we need an even more broad definition if we're going to include everything relevent.

I suppose we could rephrase the above as "DM Fiat: The DMs right to rule based on his own judgment, superceding player input." But then we're talking about both the RAW hole-patching above, and totalitarian DMs who dominate games monomaniacally, ignoring the rules. And while I'm just fine with the former, I don't think I could ever support the latter. So to phrase "DM fiat?" as a yes/no question wouldn't make any sense.