Crazy Jerome
First Post
I think in the end we don't need to dial things all the way back to pure DM fiat, but instead we need to find some compromise between the two. A system that allows your character to be better then yourself on paper, but at the same time promotes a bit of interaction with the imaginary world.
How do you balance those two things though?
Any number of ways, the exploration of which I guess is the point of the article.
The way i was advocating in my prior post, but into more general terms, is something like this:
A. There are nice things about having rolls and also nice things about having some fiat. To get both in the same design, one way is to divide when they apply. The character and the player need to matter.
B. The problem with fiat is that you get dick DMs--either because they don't know what they are doing, or because they just don't give a rip. Can't do anything about the ones that don't give a rip, but the way to help the salvageable ones is to teach them how to manage the fiat. One way to do that is to give them some structure for the fiat to work within.
C. The problem with rolls/numbers/mechanics/etc. is that you focus on those. You'd like to somehow limit that influence while still having it handy for when it really matters.
D. You could divide along functional lines. For example, diplomacy could be nearly all fiat and combat nearly all rolls. However, that has been tried, and unless the particular mix happens to appeal to you, is probably not a good fit for D&D. Any given mix is unlikely to have wide spread appeal to those otherwise willing to play D&D. You can also make each one matter somewhat, but the problem here all too frequently is that cautious players end up playing both to the max, the DM escalates, and off we go.
E. So the divide needs to happen some other way. One way is when the divide occurs varies, depending on the situation. Two things determine when it matters--when and what the player initiates and what his character sheet says his compentency is. Only in this particular slant, the emphasis slides from fiat to roll and back again depending upon your characters' competence and the thing you chose to do. This puts the choice largely in the hands of the player during play, at least more so than other options (e.g. DM's hands with pure fiat, or character build, etc.)
Now one big bug (or feature for some people) to that slant is that the "flags" of what you are interested in have some interesting tweaks. This is true of any game, but it becomes much more obvious here. Namely, the prospect that your skill levels informs your interest changes dramatically with relative challenge. You get:
1. No appreciable skill - don't care to interact with this--unchanged from other systems.
2. Low skill - can do it if necessary or if need to push. Flag as don't want to do it much, but can "step up" occasionally. Flag is avoidance, but more conditional than many systems.
3. Average skill - things you want to do a lot. Flag is stronger than many other systems, at this skill level. Requires some player effort with strong chance of success.
4. Varying degrees of High skill - things your character may do a lot, but you as a player spend little time or effort upon. The character does these effortlessly. From a flag perspective, you don't want to be bothered with the mechanics or challenge of this task much as a player--though you are probably highly interested in it thematically or such. This is also true of many systems as a practical matter, but not usually this stark compared to the being average.
You'll note that the need for fiat changes radically in each step. In fact, in the last one, the player has the option to commit resources to, in effect, exercise player fiat: With this task, I'm so talented that on normal stuff, I simply get what I want. It only matters when the DM has introduced something tougher than normal.
Last edited: