D&D 5E (2014) Simulation vs Game - Where should D&D 5e aim?

[Ahnehnois]

Umm, if you were making a dictionary, under DM fiat "dictating outcomes" is what DM fiat is. How would you define DM fiat?

"DM Fiat" : A decision, made by a DM other than the speaker, that the speaker does not like.

 

[Hussar]

Ah. Snark. Good to know.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The snark is the original term itself. It has no useful definition, it's just a way of insulting people that are different from you and hiding behind jargon that supposedly represents some objective value judgement.

 

[Hussar]

The snark is the original term itself. It has no useful definition, it's just a way of insulting people that are different from you and hiding behind jargon that supposedly represents some objective value judgement.

Not even remotely.

DM fiat is exactly what I said - the DM is over ruling the mechanics of the game to produce a specific result. It can be good if the table is happy with the result but has some pretty large hurdles.

Namely that DM's who rely heavily on fiat produce games where the player relies on his understanding of the DM and not the game itself.

If you find it insulting, that's probababky due to reasons beyond the definition of the term itself.

 

[Ahnehnois]

DM fiat is exactly what I said - the DM is over ruling the mechanics of the game to produce a specific result.

A definition that falsifies itself, given that the most important overriding rule of the game is that what the DM says, goes. Individual DMs may and do have their own distinctions about how and when they will exercise that authority, but there is no such thing as a DM overriding the rules themselves.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

From the fact that character X endures 10 arrows on one occasion, it doesn't follow that this is typical, or a basis for generalisation.

No, it doesn't follow in that direction. It actually goes the other way, was my argument. Whatever the reality of the game world actually is, it is somehow reflected in the game mechanics where Joe is "hit" by ten arrows and then falls unconscious.

For me, at least, "Biting Volley" doesn't map to a distinct event in the gameworld. Within the gameworld the archer character is just shooting arrows.

For me, it's a lot easier to treat each power as a distinct event, the mechanics of which are plain to see by any character that can see it. I get that it doesn't work for everyone, though.

Even if you don't buy into the idea that there's any mapping of game actions onto the reality of the game world - and you can describe any of those powers in similar or distinct ways, changing the description of the same power each time you use it - it's still true that a 2[W] power pushes you closer to unconscious than a 1[W] power. Even if hit points are not at all visible to anyone within the game world, as long as you still fall unconscious when you hit zero, there will be situations where (whatever you used to describe the 2[W] power in this instance) meant that you later fell unconscious, where you wouldn't have if (whatever you would have used to describe the 1 [W] power) had happened instead.

It's objectively true, whether or not anyone can see any difference between those two powers in action.

 

[Libramarian]

The really important part is that the average number of arrows to drop someone is an objective part of the game world (for whatever definition of "hit" you want to use). Whether that's a scratch, or a direct impact against armor, or extremely-close shave - or even if it's left undefined - as long as the reality of the arrow is mechanically reflected as d8 damage, and the state of the character is mechanically reflected as a number of hit points, then it will be true that it takes about the same number of arrows to go from full to zero (barring outside variables, like critical hits and sneak attack and all that).

I dislike refluffed/soloized/minionized monsters and 4e's adventure construction and encounter difficulty guidelines. But for me it's not because I necessarily dislike all metagame mechanics, it's because these ones disrupt the sense of achievement I want the players have when they level up their characters and advance in the game.

In traditional D&D, when you level up the game gets easier. You (via your character) begin in a new area, or dungeon level, with a relatively fixed strength of opposition, and learn some intel, find a few magic items, and level up a couple of times, until this level of opposition becomes easy and then you move on to a tougher area. This arc is central to the enjoyment of the game. It's disrupted when the DM arranges the opposition according to their own idea of how the dramatic arc should go (or even their idea of the players' idea of how it should go). Leveling up is not the same kind of reward in 4e as it is in classic D&D and this makes it a much worse game IMO.

Since the traditional D&D dramatic arc proceeds according to the rate at which the PCs' murder and plunder, and when the players decide to risk more for greater reward, the game tends to produce a meandering, only sporadically interesting narrative from a more literary perspective. But I'm OK with that because this is a really fun and very unusual game. I have many other options for better narrative experiences. Of course someone into narrativist games could say the same about gamist experiences. But I play a lot of modern board and video games and D&D still holds up well IMO.

 

[Hussar]

A definition that falsifies itself, given that the most important overriding rule of the game is that what the DM says, goes. Individual DMs may and do have their own distinctions about how and when they will exercise that authority, but there is no such thing as a DM overriding the rules themselves.

How is this falsified? My definition is in no ways counters what you said. Rule 0 is DM Fiat by definition. Again, the negative connotations that you associate with DM Fiat are your own, not part of the term itself. There's nothing inherently wrong with DM fiat.

When the DM decides that he or she doesn't like a particular rule, and then changes that rule, that's not necessarily fiat because it's not necessarily being done to produce a specific result. If I think jumping is too easy, so, I jack up the jump DC, that's not fiat, necessarily. All I'm doing is changing the odds.

OTOH, if I change the DC to the point where I know that your character cannot succeed, or will automatically succeed, then that's fiat. I've changed the rules to the point where I am getting a specific result.

To recap - changing the rules isn't necessarily DM fiat. Changing the rules to produce a specific result? Yup, that's fiat. It's all about the results. Choosing different models for abstracting an action or object within the game world? Not fiat. Changing the model to the point where there can only be one result? That's fiat.

Another example. In 1e D&D there were no rules for long distance jumping. So, different DM's would give different rulings - Str or Dex check, possibly a save vs Paralysis, that sort of thing. That's not fiat, since all they've done is choose a particular method for modelling jumping. However, once you've picked that method, if you then start futzing about with it so that a PC cannot succeed because you don't think it's possible for him to succeed ("You can't jump in plate mail" is a pretty common occurrence at many tables), now you're into fiat territory.

And, finally, it's not like there's a hard and fast definition here. There are shades of grey.

However, at the end of things, fiat is, in itself, neither positive nor negative, it's simply another tool in the DM's kit.

 

[LostSoul]

I dislike refluffed/soloized/minionized monsters and 4e's adventure construction and encounter difficulty guidelines. But for me it's not because I necessarily dislike all metagame mechanics, it's because these ones disrupt the sense of achievement I want the players have when they level up their characters and advance in the game.

This post sums up my feelings well. (Well, I like the encounter difficulty guidelines, but I use them in a "status quo" way.)

I play story games as well as D&D and they differ in that the story I get from retelling what happened during a D&D game is more of a "I can't believe everything worked out like that" instead of... however you'd define story games: there's a cathartic release from both types of games but it's different with story games. Story games challenge me more emotionally than tactically or strategically. (I think that's the point of story games for me; in both types of games, crafting a story as some kind of final product is a by-product of playing the game.)

One departure I've made from this traditional format is to provide mechanics for what happens in the setting as time passes: specifically with NPC organizations, or "monster lairs" as I call them. The intent is to make time a resource. If you don't manage it well, even if you gain levels and magic items, squandering your time can make the game more difficult. (Not necessarily more difficult; it depends on the goal you've chosen for your PC, but in any case the setting will change.) How to get the right balance here is a difficult task, probably best suited for something like a computer game to figure out - so I don't have to run through dozens of year-long campaigns to test it.

 

[LostSoul]

How is this falsified?

I'm not trying to answer for Ahnehnois, I'm trying to put his philosophy in my own words. Maybe he can tell me if I get it right. Anyway.

There's no point saying that the DM overrules the mechanics because the DM making decisions is the entirety of the game's mechanics. The rules are there* to help inform the DM as to how to make a decision, but in the end it's always up to the DM. In which case the term "DM fiat" is meaningless; it's like saying "the DM DMs".

* - I think Ahnehnois believes there are other uses for rules but I'd be interested in hearing him talk about that.