Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lonely Tylenol" data-source="post: 3136141" data-attributes="member: 18549">Actually, I don't think this covers at least one of the above definitions.&nbsp; Specifically, that the DM should arbitrate solutions to problems that do not appear to be covered by the RAW, but otherwise follow the RAW.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; I have seen both the former and latter systems in actual play.&nbsp; 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 &quot;DM Fiat: The DMs right to rule based on his own judgment, superceding player input.&quot;&nbsp; But then we're talking about both the RAW hole-patching above, and totalitarian DMs who dominate games monomaniacally, ignoring the rules.&nbsp; And while I'm just fine with the former, I don't think I could ever support the latter.&nbsp; So to phrase &quot;DM fiat?&quot; as a yes/no question wouldn't make any sense.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lonely Tylenol, post: 3136141, member: 18549"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification