Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 3138990" data-attributes="member: 3192">Don't mind my snark.  I posted to the OP before reading the thread.  I think Buzz here sums up nicely the difference between the definition of DM fiat I was using and what others are.  Of the 5 examples that Matt Snyder shows: I agree with the first 4 (pretty common ones) and have only heard of the 5th style being used in Forge games.  I, for one, am vehemently against games with single Situations and Premises as defined in Forge lingo.  As a DM I take the referee position.  The world is created with lots of suggestions and offerings by the players (both before play and during) and I incorporate whatever I like with the same veto power I would use for new rules (prestige classes, feats, spells, etc.).  As the DM it is my job to entwine these into the world/setting.  Offered Situations/Modules/Adventures are changed by me for the same reason anyone would alter a mystery story that's part of the public domain.  However, once the peices are up and running the only god-like status I hold is as the watchmaker.  I make sure everything runs smoothly according to the agreed upon rules and watch as the world plays out.  Adventures are never run singly and, in truth, not even plotweaved together.  That is, unless, being fit logically in the same world as other adventures is considered plotweaving.  Also, plots are never dictated.  They are the goals and desires of the NPCs.  I'd never think to enforce specific courses of action on the players  (especially when it's called a Plot or Adventure Synopsis).As to adjudicating events using GM-Player agreement, it's far to metagamey for my tastes.  Players would have to break character every time we rolled a die to determine an outcome.  It also presumes that Players know everything there is to know about a situation.  Bargaining for an outcome is fine, but my DCs or target numbers are going to be the same everytime.    The guards in the example are on a timed schedule even if I just made it up minutes before as that was when it became relevant.  The DCs, the odd NPC behaviors, are the challenges for Players to overcome in character.  I'm not about to remove them from the game.OTOH, don't you see a difficulty arising from the GM/Player agreement phase?  If the GM doesn't agree with Players' bargaining, is he using DM Fiat?  Are arguments a common occurence during these periods?  Are they acceptable?  When the DM isn't a referee, but instead a conveyer of player wishes D&D stops being a game in my mind.  It no longer has winners or losers.  It's simply wish fulfilment which doesn't require dice at all.If a player or players don't like what is happening in a game I run, they can always choose another course.  There is no dictate that only one road or series of roads lead to the final outcome.  And if a player can't find anything of interest in the world, then I'd hope they would offer more suggestions, that they would speak their mind before switching to another game.  That's the best I can offer to remove DM fiat from even the Setting portion of RPGs.</blockquote>

Verification