PDA

View Full Version : DM Help Why is DM Fiat considered a Very Bad Thing?™



roko10
2014-12-23, 06:30 AM
See title. I don't really get the treatment of DM Fiat as something bad to do, or at the very best unnecessary. Why, exactly?

Miscast_Mage
2014-12-23, 07:09 AM
It depends on how it's handled; usually when people complain about DM Fiat, it's because Player Agency was taken out of their hands or their actions were simply invalidated or ignored. On the other hand, when it's done well, it's usually seen as the GM handwaving something or rule 0.

For example, if the rogue wants to try and pick the lock on a door, and has invested skills and points into being able to do just that, it can leave a bitter taste if the GM just says "No, that door is unpickable." If the player has invested so much into lockpicking that locks essentially become an auto-pass, I wouldn't see a problem if a GM just says "Well, your Disable Device is so high there's no chance of you failing, let's just say you automatically pick any simple locks, no need to roll", though there is also the point that some players like rolling, even if it isn't necessary.

Taking control away from the players is always risky and can be seen as a That GM move, especially when it shuts down or invalidates a character. If it's used to speed up the story, for hand-waving convenience, or assist a player, then it could be beneficial if handled well.

Eldan
2014-12-23, 07:19 AM
The undertone is that the DM springs things suddenly on the players or overrides their agency.

Like with house rules: most people won't complain too much if the DM says before the game that a certain spell has been changed. But casting the spell in combat, then finding out that it doesn't work? Probably just ruined your plan, in a situation where you can't really adapt. Probably bad DMing.

Or other situations. Agency is particularly bad. "You see a guy. All your characters trust him because he's so awesome". That's a guaranteed way to make players hate someone.

Or, of course, making things that defy the rules for sake of plot. The unbreakable dungeon wall, as soon as players can burrow. The room no one can teleport in, except the boss who needs to escape the death trap. The boss who conveniently becomes immune to every plan the players think up until after he has slain the king and delivered his monologue. And so on.

These last few can really be avoided if you actually find a way to make them work in the rules. Quite often, that will satisfy the players, even if it is still cheesy.

VincentTakeda
2014-12-23, 08:17 AM
I used to unequivocally say that rules light fiat heavy systems were the way to play, until I met folks who'd spent years playing under 'can only say no' kind of gms... after years of 'abuse' (read: inappropriate use of fiat which I agree is mostly anything that removes player agency or specifically is meant to stop the player from having the players personal kind of fun) those otherwise totally awesome players and gms had 'learned' that that kind of thing was 'just the way it's done'... You either played a system that lockstepped you into published mechanics so you could debate the context of how they were written, or you played rules light and rule zero vs rule negative 1 was the only way to keep your gm in check. 'Untraining' these bad habits has practically become a part time job.

I used to believe rules light fiat heavy was the only right way to play, but I now see that rules heavy fiat light systems exist and are popular because folks have been playing under some pretty brutal gms... Some of them their whole lives. Rules heavy systems are their refuge. This belief is no longer as unilateral for me as it once was, but I still believe the best games are run by gms who's players trust them to make decisions everyone at the table can enjoy in a rules light fiat heavy environment.

I'd say you should only game with folks you can trust to have your best interests at heart, but the more players I meet, the more I realize not everyone has had that luxury.

GloatingSwine
2014-12-23, 08:29 AM
DM Fiat is a two edged sword.

The bad kind tends to rear its head when the DM has a super special awesome story all mapped out and they consider it far too good to be grubbied up by the involvement of other players, and so they use the power of rule 0 to make sure that everything goes according to their plan and nobody can ruin it all.

The good kind is where it gets used to smooth over awkwardness in rule implementations or otherwise improve the flow of a game session whilst letting the other players, y'know, play.



For example, if the rogue wants to try and pick the lock on a door, and has invested skills and points into being able to do just that, it can leave a bitter taste if the GM just says "No, that door is unpickable."

This is an example of it being used to cover up poor imagination. If you know your party has a rogue with heavy investment in lockpicking, and you don't want them going through a door, don't rely on a lock to keep them out. If they're low level then it's conceivable a good lock will be a higher DC than the rogue could pick, but as they get higher the same tricks won't work. If they're higher level though then you need to get more creative, because they're probably capable of going through most doors, and the wall they're attached to, like they're not there. (So, the thing you don't want them getting is through a Sigil style portal where they don't know the destination and they have to find the trigger to get in, that's the sort of thing a high level party shouldn't be too far out of their comfort zone experiencing, hell if you're feeling mean the trigger could be unlocking the door with the key, so it literally goes to a different place if you pick the lock)

caden_varn
2014-12-23, 09:42 AM
The benefit of rules over fiat is that rules are fixed - you get the same thing in all games, so you can understand what is possible and how to do it. With fiat, you can get very different rulings under different GMs, even if they are both reasonable people and decent DMs.

Different people like different playstyles and game types - it is one of the strengths of the hobby, but if you get into a rules-light, fiat-type game with a GM with a markedly different play preference to yourself, you are probably not going to enjoy yourself too much. With a more rules-heavy game, you can get a good idea of what the game is about and the sort of playstyles it supports well.

If your GM has a compatible playstyle to you, you may have a better experience with a rules light game, on the other hand.

Jay R
2014-12-23, 10:29 AM
DM fiat is a cornerstone of the very best play, if the DM is excellent and the players trust her.

DM fiat is the tool that destroys games, if the DM is poor or the players don't trust her.

Red Fel
2014-12-23, 10:37 AM
DM fiat is a cornerstone of the very best play, if the DM is excellent and the players trust her.

DM fiat is the tool that destroys games, if the DM is poor or the players don't trust her.

This. DM fiat is like the DMPC - a tool, neither bad nor good. However, as with any tool that takes arbitrary rules and converts them into discretionary rulings, DM fiat has the potential for abuse. The reason you may think it's considered a "Very Bad Thing" is that, when it's done well, it's barely noteworthy. You don't see nearly as many stories of "My DM issued an arbitrary ruling which was frankly a good idea" as you do "My DM nerfed my class abilities." You hear more about the bad than the good.

DM fiat is, at times, necessary. When there are disagreements at the table, or when the rules are ambiguous or poorly-written, DM fiat allows the DM to lay down the law, as it is and always shall be, so say we all. It's only when it becomes a replacement for the rules, when it is sudden and unexpected, when it is arbitrary and capricious, when it is disruptive rather than constructive, that it becomes problematic.

Vitruviansquid
2014-12-23, 11:36 AM
I consider DM Fiat a bad thing because it is only necessary when the rules have broken down somewhere and can't handle the current situation. As such, it is a "Very Bad Thing" for the designers of your game, not usually your DM, unless your DM steps in to fiat something unnecessarily. This also doesn't mean all systems should strive to account for every situation, because then you get craziness and bloated rulebooks, but if you're having to resort to DM fiat every five minutes while playing a game as it's meant to be played... something's wrong with the rules.

Eldan
2014-12-23, 11:53 AM
I used to unequivocally say that rules light fiat heavy systems were the way to play, until I met folks who'd spent years playing under 'can only say no' kind of gms... after years of 'abuse' (read: inappropriate use of fiat which I agree is mostly anything that removes player agency or specifically is meant to stop the player from having the players personal kind of fun) those otherwise totally awesome players and gms had 'learned' that that kind of thing was 'just the way it's done'... You either played a system that lockstepped you into published mechanics so you could debate the context of how they were written, or you played rules light and rule zero vs rule negative 1 was the only way to keep your gm in check. 'Untraining' these bad habits has practically become a part time job.

I used to believe rules light fiat heavy was the only right way to play, but I now see that rules heavy fiat light systems exist and are popular because folks have been playing under some pretty brutal gms... Some of them their whole lives. Rules heavy systems are their refuge. This belief is no longer as unilateral for me as it once was, but I still believe the best games are run by gms who's players trust them to make decisions everyone at the table can enjoy in a rules light fiat heavy environment.

I'd say you should only game with folks you can trust to have your best interests at heart, but the more players I meet, the more I realize not everyone has had that luxury.

I wouldn't say it's just about DM quality. Rules are also quite helpful for simple disagreements. If I envision my character as having a certain power level and you envision it as not having that power level, eventually, we will have to discuss it. In a freeform game, this discussion can get complicated. "Magnus the Magnificient could totally blast a hole through that wall!" "No, he can't! His magic has never been that powerful!" is a simple and straightforward disagreement that can happen to anyone. Having a rule that says that Magnus can break stone walls up to fifteen inches thick helps a lot in such cases.

Also, as a DM, I'm often just unsure how to resolve things. I'm terrified that I might be unfair to someone. There, again, rules help a lot. I don't think I'd like having to make decisions constantly.

gom jabbarwocky
2014-12-23, 12:30 PM
Also, as a DM, I'm often just unsure how to resolve things. I'm terrified that I might be unfair to someone. There, again, rules help a lot. I don't think I'd like having to make decisions constantly.

Bam. If I'm a GM, I don't want to have to rely on GM fiat to move things along because that's too much responsibility and too much work. I don't ill behoove the rules for imposing limits on my power as a GM, because I should be flexible enough to work within that framework and not be tempted to abuse my power as the supreme arbiter and living god of the campaign world! Mwah-ha-ha-ha!

Jay R
2014-12-23, 01:12 PM
The reason you may think it's considered a "Very Bad Thing" is that, when it's done well, it's barely noteworthy.

This is a crucial point. The players never know about most occurrences of GM fiat in my games, simply because I change something that would have prevented their clever, swashbuckling idea with a cold, uncinematic fact. So I change the fact, and they never see it.

But sometimes, they need to know. I just added a new rule to my 2E game last session, by DM fiat: When you use a skill roll to attempt something I consider sufficiently heroic and reasonably likely, your skill roll isn't to determine if you succeed, but rather, did anything annoying happen.

Example (and the one that caused the rules change): Several gnolls are running upstairs, attacking the party. A party member with high Dex says, "I'm going to jump off the side of the stairs here to get behind them and open up a new front." I think it's a reasonably easy jump, but he fails the roll.

Me: OK, you make it, and land where you planned. But your ankle hurts. You can move half-speed and fight, but no more jumps until you get a chance to wrap it.

jedipotter
2014-12-23, 01:32 PM
1. People don't like the idea that someone has any sort of power. Unless, of course, it is them. So people don't like that a DM can ''just do stuff''.

2. People don't agree. No matter what someone does, someone won't like it.

3. Negativity. People only like rulings that are positive...for their character. So they automatically dislike any negative ruling.

4. Players don't trust the DM.

5. Rules First. Starting at 3E you get the idea that ''the rules'' are 100% perfect and impartial. So if everyone, even the DM, follows the rules....you will have a perfect game.


And it's the classic extreme view too. Somewhere, some when some crazy DM made a ''fiat'' that someone did not like. And that has spawned into ''all fiats'' are bad. The same way a d20 is a ''very bad dice'' as it rolled a one once.

VincentTakeda
2014-12-23, 03:52 PM
The paizo threads are somewhat of a perfect example that 'even with the chance to correct and revise over the course of a decade, rules as written and rules as interpreted are frequently not close to each other, so I definitely believe not just that fiat is necessary, but that if handled well, it is the best thing and if handled poorly it is the worst thing.

'Handled well' and 'handled poorly' unfortunately are entirely subjective, thus where all the trouble starts.

NichG
2014-12-23, 04:24 PM
People focus a lot on fiat that is directly aimed at modifying what the PCs can do in the heat of a situation, but actually that's only a tiny part of what it can be used for. IME, DM fiat is more often used for things like 'here's a tribe of people who have learned the art of summoning helpful spirits from plants' or 'the demon lord of this plane can know the desires of any who enter his court' or 'this egg can pull the soul from a recently slain person and reincarnate them as an animal within the egg to prevent them from being raised or resurrected'. Or even 'here is a scholar who has spent 80 years studying this one subject; he can answer difficult questions on this subject, but he's still just Lv1 in all other regards'.

Basically I just wanted to point out that it doesn't have to be about telling a PC that their own powers work differently than they thought. If that's all you look at, it's easy to develop a negative impression of DM fiat because it's always being used 'against you' as a player. But really a large part of what its for is to make the game flow more smoothly, to better enable improvisation (and therefore be better positioned to continue the game without pause when PCs do things that you didn't plan for), and to make the world more open and responsive in general.

Frenth Alunril
2014-12-23, 05:01 PM
Personally, DM fiat is how the game works and everything is at the will of the DM.

That being said, the "No Machine" the "I've a Cool Story" person and the "Invincible BBEG" DM all forget that the game is about the players having fun!

For example, I just started a group of new players on 5e HotDQ (hot dairy Queen!) The first encounter I rolled up, 1 acolyte and 3 guardsmen approach the caravan which the players convinced to move a bit closer to town. The Acolyte says, "surrender this caravan and all of your treasure as tribute to The Dragon Queen!"

Dragon born paladin makes a brazen intimidation check, "No, stand aside, who is in charge here? I will speak to them and we will see who gets tribute!"

Made a good roll, acolyte failed his roll, I use dm fiat, dragons, dragon Queen, half dragons, dragon cultists, dragon born paladin, yeah, the acolyte agreed to guard the caravan.

Is that an option in the story? Not exactly, but, the players don't need to know that. It gives then a victory outside of stabbing and fighting. So I'm happy with it.

Does this mean there aren't bad dms? No, but fiat is what makes table top better than video games.

Eldan
2014-12-23, 05:36 PM
I don't think building the world is DM Fiat. Perhaps different people have different meanings for it, but to me, it's Fiat whenever the DM says "It is so because I say so". Instead of saying "It is so because it makes a better story" or "It is so because the rules say so" or "It is so because of this and this other good reason."
There's a good reason the world "Fiat" is used, though reasons that move into forbidden topics.

Sith_Happens
2014-12-23, 06:05 PM
See title. I don't really get the treatment of DM Fiat as something bad to do, or at the very best unnecessary. Why, exactly?

Mainly because it's basically the tabletop equivalent of the computer being a cheating bastard (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheComputerIsACheatingBastard). That's not to say that it can't be done well (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TropesAreTools), but that seems to be a stark minority of total occurrences.

Milodiah
2014-12-23, 06:32 PM
While DM Fiat technically refers to anything the DM says that isn't covered by an explicit rule, that definition isn't what we're talking here. The DM saying "the paladin's cape is blue" would technically be DM fiat because there's not a ridiculous random table in the book to determine paladin cape colors, and if there was he's fiating his choice.

DM fiat usually comes up when a DM specifically supersedes a published rule or otherwise does something he wouldn't let one of his players do in order to keep "his" game going "his" way. If he won't acknowledge that by RAW the BBEG should be at negative health and dropped, then that is an example of DM fiat. If the DM had built him properly to achieve that with feats like Diehard, proper magic items/spells, etc. then it isn't an issue. But if I ever asked a DM "why didn't that guy go down, we dealt like double the damage it'd take to drop a ____ of his level" and the DM responds "Because I said he didn't", that would piss me off and make me question my involvement with him.

I don't respect people who hand out plot armor to NPCs, make a mundane task impossible to a group of people probably able to kill a god, etc. You put your BBEG somewhere he can be killed, have a plan for his death. You make a door that the players would want to go through, make a plan for them going through it. It's not just railroading, it's a middle finger to your players.

NichG
2014-12-23, 07:42 PM
Again, there's a difference between superseding a rule and actively using that to thwart the PCs.

If I make an NPC who can answer questions that require a DC 45 Knowledge check to answer normally, but he doesn't also have a BAB above 3 or more than 15 hitpoints, then its likely that I'm superseding the rules to do so (I won't rule out some optimization tricks that could do it by RAW, but in practice it's just not a good use of the DM's time to go through the trouble of actually finding said tricks just to build an NPC).

Doing that doesn't a-priori have anything at all to do with the PCs succeeding or failing at things. It doesn't modify their characters or their powers. Yet I'd argue that it's an example of DM Fiat - just that that particular example is a sensible usage of it, whereas 'I decided that I don't want the BBEG to die right now' is less-so. It's DM Fiat because the DM is over-writing the rules of the game, or outright ignoring them, in order to provide something required by the setting, fluff, story, flow of the game, or even just simple expediency.

That is to say: The PCs decided they wanted to look for a sage to answer their questions, I think its reasonable that said sage exists, I don't want that sage to be higher level than the PCs because then there's the Elminster problem, and I'd like to solve this need with less than a few minutes of thought since this need appeared mid-game - ergo, there exists such a sage, and lets forget about how his mechanics work because they don't matter in this case.

Knaight
2014-12-23, 07:56 PM
I consider DM Fiat a bad thing because it is only necessary when the rules have broken down somewhere and can't handle the current situation. As such, it is a "Very Bad Thing" for the designers of your game, not usually your DM, unless your DM steps in to fiat something unnecessarily. This also doesn't mean all systems should strive to account for every situation, because then you get craziness and bloated rulebooks, but if you're having to resort to DM fiat every five minutes while playing a game as it's meant to be played... something's wrong with the rules.
It depends on what is meant by DM fiat. One one end is the need for active interpretation of setting elements that isn't just a table look up. I have absolutely no issue with a GM having to decide that a particular tree is easy to climb based on their image of that tree in their head, rather than consulting some climb skill table. On the other end is where there is literally nothing that covers a situation, and something brand new needs to be invented. Broad general rules are a good thing in my mind, not a bad one.


Mainly because it's basically the tabletop equivalent of the computer being a cheating bastard (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheComputerIsACheatingBastard). That's not to say that it can't be done well (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TropesAreTools), but that seems to be a stark minority of total occurrences.
It's only like that if there are particular rules that have been set down that are being actively broken. Most of the time, that isn't the case, it's just the GM making interpretations and such, which is completely fine. The "stark minority of total occurrences" is the vast majority of what I've seen, and the exceptions were with GMs that were going to be awful regardless.

jedipotter
2014-12-23, 08:13 PM
I don't think building the world is DM Fiat. Perhaps different people have different meanings for it, but to me, it's Fiat whenever the DM says "It is so because I say so". Instead of saying "It is so because it makes a better story" or "It is so because the rules say so" or "It is so because of this and this other good reason."
There's a good reason the world "Fiat" is used, though reasons that move into forbidden topics.

This runaround has always confused me. Ok. So we start with It is wrong for the DM to just say something just because they say so. Ok. So that is considered wrong. But then it's made pointless with except when it makes a better story or another good reason or if page 42 of the rule book says we must do it that way. Ok. So it's wrong, unless the DM can spin that it's good for the story, has another good reason or is just following a rule''. So....that means it's never wrong?

So how does this even work?

Does it work like this: Player: ''Thog throws a dagger at Evil Roni!'' DM: ''Wait. Hold. Pause. I'm officially calling a stop to the game. I have built up a great and fun adventure around Evil Roni, so if your character kills him now then you will ruin the story. I wish to use a DM Fait to save Evil Roni. " And the DM stops and takes say a whole half hour explaining why they want to use the DM Fait. And if all the players agree then the DM can say ''The dagger just bounces off his stone hard skin...and he gets away!''

Or does it work like Player:''Thog throws a dagger at Evil Roni!'' DM: ''The dagger hits his skin and bounces off'' and the game rolls on......so there is no way for the player to know if it was ''because the DM said so'' or ''cool story'' or even ''rule 42''.

Or is it: Player:''Thog throws a dagger at Evil Roni!'' DM: ''The dagger hits his skin and bounces off'' and DM turns to the player and winks ''you can't kill him it will ruin the story'' then they high five and continue the game.

Frenth Alunril
2014-12-23, 09:03 PM
... DM turns to the player and winks ''you can't kill him it will ruin the story'' then they high five and continue the game.

^^^ I so want it to be this!!

kellbyb
2014-12-23, 09:18 PM
This runaround has always confused me. Ok. So we start with It is wrong for the DM to just say something just because they say so. Ok. So that is considered wrong. But then it's made pointless with except when it makes a better story or another good reason or if page 42 of the rule book says we must do it that way. Ok. So it's wrong, unless the DM can spin that it's good for the story, has another good reason or is just following a rule''. So....that means it's never wrong?

So how does this even work?

People don't like it when things happen for no tangible reason, and "because I said so" has never been such a thing. Ever.


Does it work like this: Player: ''Thog throws a dagger at Evil Roni!'' DM: ''Wait. Hold. Pause. I'm officially calling a stop to the game. I have built up a great and fun adventure around Evil Roni, so if your character kills him now then you will ruin the story. I wish to use a DM Fait to save Evil Roni. " And the DM stops and takes say a whole half hour explaining why they want to use the DM Fait. And if all the players agree then the DM can say ''The dagger just bounces off his stone hard skin...and he gets away!''

Or does it work like Player:''Thog throws a dagger at Evil Roni!'' DM: ''The dagger hits his skin and bounces off'' and the game rolls on......so there is no way for the player to know if it was ''because the DM said so'' or ''cool story'' or even ''rule 42''.

Or is it: Player:''Thog throws a dagger at Evil Roni!'' DM: ''The dagger hits his skin and bounces off'' and DM turns to the player and winks ''you can't kill him it will ruin the story'' then they high five and continue the game.

How about this: Player:''Thog throws a dagger at Evil Roni!'' DM: ''The dagger hits his skin and bounces off'' Player: (Sounds like Evil Roni has a natural AC bonus or a stoneskin effect) *shakes fist* "You're not getting away this this, you rogue!" and play continues.

Or maybe this: Player:''Thog throws a dagger at Evil Roni!'' DM: "The makes a soft 'thunk' as it embeds itself in Evil Roni's shoulder, but it's just one knife so he's just wounded. He pulls it out, spits on it, and curses at you, then pops a smoke bomb and disappears into the crowd." Player: "Damn, he got away. Next time he won't be so lucky." Play continues as normal.

Jay R
2014-12-23, 09:57 PM
So how does this even work?

It works however the DM thinks it should work in the given situation. That's the point.


So how does this even work?

Does it work like this: Player: ''Thog throws a dagger at Evil Roni!''

DM: What's your roll?
Player: <gives the number>
DM: (to himself) Hmmm. That barely misses, because Roni was 21 feet away, but if he were only 20 feet away, it would be a hit. That one foot isn't really worth an additional -3. I'm going to count it as medium range. (To Player) You hit! Roll for damage.
Player: 7 more points, including all pluses.
DM: (to himself) Dam' - I had a whole plot built around him. OK, Roni wasn't going to hire them to find the map; he had the map already and was going to hire them to follow it. (To player) Congratulations! Roni falls over. When you search him, you find a map showing a secret trail over the Merlock Mountains (a long and lonely road), through the Spider Shadows to the Marsh of Toad.

SgtCarnage92
2014-12-23, 10:27 PM
Ultimately, just like anything it's very subjective and dependent on the particular style of your GM.

I have more stories of situations where I should have pulled a GM fiat and I chose not to and it weakened the game as a whole, (there's a 4+ hour chase scene encounter from one of my earlier games that still haunts me).

Overall, I try to avoid pulling a GM fiat as much as possible but I have learned of its usefulness on several occasions especially when it's used to adjudicate arguments between PCs. I had a player try to drop kick another player's character (a gnome) over some perceived slight and there was another argument when another PC stepped in with a "calm emotions," spell. This sparked an additional argument and it was starting to get out of hand both in character and out of character. That's when I made my ruling that spell took effect before the kick...had a player walk out on me but overall I stand by the decision.

oxybe
2014-12-23, 10:36 PM
The issue most people have with DM fiat is when it's either used explicitly to curb player agency or when it's used to excuse badly written, thought out or executed rules.

When a GM uses fiat to simply say "I don't like this outcome, so I'll change it as I see fit" to me, as a player, it indicates that I don't have a say or control in the game. My being here is rather pointless all things considered and my time at the table would be just as well spent doing a raid in World of Warcraft or watching anime.

When I run a game or play a game and have an issue with the mechanics, telling me that I can change the rules doesn't change the fact that the issue is in place. I don't want to have to change the rules. I don't mind changing a rule to fit better the game I'm running, but having to make and apply a fix is something I don't look forward to.

I fully expect the GM to apply rulings in areas the rules don't cover, but I expect those areas to be few and far between and mostly corner cases. I don't want to be ruling things left and right ever session. I have better things to do with my time, like adjudicating how the world reacts to player actions, instead of adjudicating the mechanics of the interaction.

1337 b4k4
2014-12-23, 11:16 PM
Basically, as others have pointed out, most of the issues people have with DM Fiat fall into one of two categories. The first is the "Inconsistency" problem. A game which requires (or expects) a lot of DM Fiat will by its very nature be inconsistent, depending on the degree of fiat that inconsistency could be from table to table (i.e. how hard is it to climb a tree, how easily can Rogar the Barbarian lift with his legs?) to inconsistency from session to session (last week the goblins were pushovers, this week they're mean and hitting harder / dodging more). For folks who dislike the inconsistency that DM Fiat can introduce, more rules and bindings on the DM's Fiating powers improves consistency. A player can know from session to session and table to table just how easily their thief can scale a standard castle wall made out of standard bricks in a regulation sunny day with regulation wind blowing. The tradeoff here is that more rules requires more work on the part of the DM, but also on the part of the player (to know the rules themselves) and that more rules means less flexibility. For example, all of the rules that D&D has about magic makes playing Harry Potter in a D&D world a near impossibility. Similarly, in 3e GURPs, it's nearly impossible to create a D&D type wizard without using a completely different magic system from the one presented in the core rule books. But this is a matter of taste for each individual player. If you don't mind that the rules of the world can be different from table to table and even session to session even if you're all playing D&D then this may not be an issue for you.

The second problem is the "tin pot dictator" problem. In this case, the DM has a way they want the story to go, or a DM PC they want to save the day, or a BBEG that shouldn't die or any other number of things they want to happen that by the rules should not. In this case, the problem is the DM taking away agency from the players by invalidating their actions and choices. When the players decide to use a scroll of Dispel Evil to one shot the BBEG (http://dreamsinthelichhouse.blogspot.com/2011/07/die-strahd-die.html) and the DM says "No", thats generally this sort of problem. Here however is where I disagree with the "more rules" proponents. The "tin pot dictator" problem is caused by a DM who is either inexperienced and hasn't learned to adjust to their plans falling apart when they encounter the players , or it's caused by a DM who doesn't actually care what the rules say or what the players want or intend. In either case, adding more rules doesn't do anything to address the underlying issue. While more rules can give the inexperienced DM more ways to prevent the players from running roughshod over their plans, ultimately that DM will encounter a scenario where the rules don't let them "win". That's the issue that they need to learn to deal with. Likewise, the second type of DM just doesn't care, add more rules and that's just more rules they'll ignore. The problem is a DM who (in the words of Dungeon World) is not a fan of the players.

Ultimately, DM fiat is a tool, and a "mechanic" in the game. How "good" or "bad" it is is a function of how and when it's applied and how much or little tolerance each individual player has for the tradeoffs it represents in the game. But just because it can be bad, doesn't make it bad. An excellent example of a game that uses DM Fiat right is Dungeon World. If you haven't, you should download and read through it, and maybe watch or listen to a couple "actual play" sessions. It's a game that's about 75% DM fiat mixed with some rather general but rigid rules and it works beautifully and it's advice on running a game is applicable to any DM, regardless of the game they play.

Necroticplague
2014-12-23, 11:52 PM
I consider fiat a bad thing because its an indication of poor gamemaking, and too frequently as an excuse for it. For games that rely on heavy use of fiat, its fairly similar to releasing a video games thats incomplete, and requires you to hack into the game and patch it yourself. Sure, you can look online for tips, and you might make something thats better in your patch than what the dev would have, but that doesn't excuse the devs for releasing an incomplete game. And too frequently, when fiat comes up when talking about gaming, I see as an excuse for piss-poor mechanics. Like this conversation I've had before:
A:You see, that entire system, standard, move, free, swift, immediate, that [censored] didn't existed yet. Initiative wasn't a thing yet either.
B:Then how did you know how much stuff you could do in a turn? Or in what order everyone took there turn in?
A:You don't need rules for that stuff, you could just figure it out.
B: How?
A:Welll...........you just figure whos faster.
B:Was that defined in any way, shape, or form so at to be actually consistent?
A:No, it didn't have to be.
B:.......even f*&^%ng monopoly told you just how much stuff you could do. This is a pretty crappy ruleset.
A: It was 30 years ago! You can't expect it to be as detailed as a modern system.
B:So? Board games have been out for god knows how many years? Its not like 'who goes first in combat', is a ridiculously rare thing to need to figure out.
A: You can just have the DM make the rule if you really need it.
B:So? You can literally say that of literally anything. That doesn't mean the original game isn't crap.

goto124
2014-12-24, 01:26 AM
The "tin pot dictator" problem is caused by a DM who is either inexperienced and hasn't learned to adjust to their plans falling apart when they encounter the players ... While more rules can give the inexperienced DM more ways to prevent the players from running roughshod over their plans, ultimately that DM will encounter a scenario where the rules don't let them "win". That's the issue that they need to learn to deal with.

Assuming we have an inexperienced but good and willing-to-learn DM, how can said DM prepare the story beforehand such that he won't have to resort to the bad sort of DM fiat?

jedipotter
2014-12-24, 01:28 AM
People don't like it when things happen for no tangible reason, and "because I said so" has never been such a thing. Ever.

Right, so the point would be to never tell the player that, right?



How about this: Player:''Thog throws a dagger at Evil Roni!'' DM: ''The dagger hits his skin and bounces off'' Player: (Sounds like Evil Roni has a natural AC bonus or a stoneskin effect) *shakes fist* "You're not getting away this this, you rogue!" and play continues.

Or maybe this: Player:''Thog throws a dagger at Evil Roni!'' DM: "The makes a soft 'thunk' as it embeds itself in Evil Roni's shoulder, but it's just one knife so he's just wounded. He pulls it out, spits on it, and curses at you, then pops a smoke bomb and disappears into the crowd." Player: "Damn, he got away. Next time he won't be so lucky." Play continues as normal.

Ok. So you agree with me that the ''because I said so'' reason is the way to go. Because that is what both your examples are. The DM can just ''say anything''. And it could be real, where the DM did write down that he ''officially cast stoneskin at 630 game time'' OR the DM could just make it up on the spot with ''poof stoneskin'', either way is perfectly ok and acceptable.


It works however the DM thinks it should work in the given situation. That's the point.


So your example seems to be ''players first'', where you will alter the game reality with the fiat, but only in 100% favor of the players. Though, your version is also ''because I said so'' as the players don't know.



The issue most people have with DM fiat is when it's either used explicitly to curb player agency or when it's used to excuse badly written, thought out or executed rules.

When a GM uses fiat to simply say "I don't like this outcome, so I'll change it as I see fit" to me, as a player, it indicates that I don't have a say or control in the game. My being here is rather pointless all things considered and my time at the table would be just as well spent doing a raid in World of Warcraft or watching anime.


Guess I'm the only one that sees the runaround:

1. DM Fiat is a Very Bad Thing and should not be used.
2. Except if the DM has a Good Reason.
3. So it's ok for a DM to use the DM Fiat all the time.

And when a DM uses a DM fiat, they should not tell the players and all fiats must fall within the game rules.

Can someone tell me how the ''bad DM fiat'' of DM: The player just made an attack that would kill the NPC that I want to stay alive.....so I'll just ignore the damage and say ''he is baddy wounded, but gets away"

is different from the ''good DM fiat'' of : DM: The player just made an attack that would kill the NPC that I want to stay alive.....so I'll just say his spellcaster minion cast false life on the NPC just before the fight, so the NPC has enough hit points to survive the attack and say ''he is baddy wounded, but gets away".

Anyone?

oxybe
2014-12-24, 03:30 AM
And when a DM uses a DM fiat, they should not tell the players and all fiats must fall within the game rules.

Can someone tell me how the ''bad DM fiat'' of DM: The player just made an attack that would kill the NPC that I want to stay alive.....so I'll just ignore the damage and say ''he is baddy wounded, but gets away"

is different from the ''good DM fiat'' of : DM: The player just made an attack that would kill the NPC that I want to stay alive.....so I'll just say his spellcaster minion cast false life on the NPC just before the fight, so the NPC has enough hit points to survive the attack and say ''he is baddy wounded, but gets away".

Anyone?
both of those are bad and you should feel bad if you use them.

There is no runaround being given, other then the one you've fabricated for yourself to see.

The second quoted Kellbyb is simply the GM relaying the information to the players. As it stands we don't actively know the circumstances behind the information, and as such we take these things at face value.

BUT, and here is the important distinction, if it does come out that the Stoneskin effect was put on retroactively because the GM didn't want Roni to die, he'll lose face and more importantly, player trust.

I don't want my GM to play with the kids gloves on. If the enemy has a stoneskin honestly prepared ahead of time and used before the fight is initiated, then good on him. If the stoneskin is applied midfight and the stats are retroactively refigured because the players are wailing on him harder then expected, then that's bad GMing.

I haven't seen any post in this thread that wasn't clear on the subject: Using fiat to tell a player that their action does not work by virtue of "this isn't the outcome I wanted" is a trait of bad GMs.

The first of your examples is a strait up fiat. The second is retroactively changing the circumstances of the action via strait up fiat. Both are cases of bad GMing because they're misusing the fiat.

as for stuff like


That is to say: The PCs decided they wanted to look for a sage to answer their questions, I think its reasonable that said sage exists, I don't want that sage to be higher level than the PCs because then there's the Elminster problem, and I'd like to solve this need with less than a few minutes of thought since this need appeared mid-game - ergo, there exists such a sage, and lets forget about how his mechanics work because they don't matter in this case.

I always figured the Knowledges were something for PCs to use rather then NPCs (same as diplomacy or intimidation checks), since they're used to answer questions in a field of study the character has, but the player probably knows nothing about (like, say the arcane). The knowledge skill fills in the gap between what the character should know and what information the player should have access to. As a GM, I fairly well know what kind of information the NPCs in my world would have access to, but as a player I'm not that familiar with the particularities of my character's upbringing or the setting at large. I know the overall gist of it, but I couldn't tell you off hand what he was learning at school on any given day or what topics were covered. This is where the Knowledge checks come into play.

This is the same reason why GMs won't ask a player to reroll for information they've gotten first hand or from a previous knowledge roll. For an NPC scholar, he either knows the information or he doesn't.

There is a line on how and when to use fiat. It isn't a binary "always good/always bad" switch. Fiat should be used to cover the corner cases or odd circumstances that
come up during play, either because the player is asking something the rules don't mention or that the circumstances leading up to the fiat require special attention.

These are good uses of fiat: making spot-judgement calls on issues that don't crop up normally. But doing things like "I don't want my bad guy to die so i'll retroactively have him be setup so that if his HP is less then 10, his contingency teleports him home" can sour the player's trust in the GM if it's ever found out, as it brings into question other close calls that may have happened (or seemed to be close calls in the players' eyes).

In a rules light game, it is imperative that the intent of a rule is made very clear. That while there is wiggle room in the specifics of how it works (which, I would say is the point of a rules light game), the intent of the rule needs to be very clear so to give the GM and players some direction on how the devs thought it should be used.

I have, however, seen some rules light games where the intent is not spelt out or the language used by the author leaves the whole thing feeling roughly done or vague, leading to people defending the rules by stating that this vagueness is intended because the GM is expected to make spot calls. But rules like that, where the intent isn't clear, makes it much harder for the GM to make those calls by not giving them guidance on the purpose of the rule or system, and raises the difficulty of making those calls consistent over the course of the campaign or even session (excluding close familiarity with the system and setting mind you, where you can better eyeball these things, but this happens in a rules light or heavy game where you simply get better at making quick calls as you know the rules intimately).

Again: it's not fiat in itself that's good or bad, but how you use it. But using fiat to kill player agency or as a defense for rules where the intent isn't clear is not how you go about it.

NichG
2014-12-24, 03:54 AM
I always figured the Knowledges were something for PCs to use rather then NPCs (same as diplomacy or intimidation checks), since they're used to answer questions in a field of study the character has, but the player probably knows nothing about (like, say the arcane). The knowledge skill fills in the gap between what the character should know and what information the player should have access to. As a GM, I fairly well know what kind of information the NPCs in my world would have access to, but as a player I'm not that familiar with the particularities of my character's upbringing or the setting at large. I know the overall gist of it, but I couldn't tell you off hand what he was learning at school on any given day or what topics were covered. This is where the Knowledge checks come into play.

I picked it precisely because it's such a bland, inoffensive, and blurry example. And yet, if I were playing with someone who was a hardcore rules lawyer, they might be bothered by me doing this. I am, technically, doing this outside of the rules when there are rules that could apply.

Most DM fiat is the kind that doesn't make waves or piss people off, but it also goes unremarked because it is as vanilla as this. You approximate an NPC's stats because you need him in short order and you vaguely know what Lv5 fighters look like, but of course there are going to be a few glitches. You homebrew a new magic item on the spot to spice up the loot. You give an NPC caster's spells some variations to be consistent with their thematics or to establish mood. The BBEG is a powerful undead warrior and you give him undead minions even though he isn't a caster or spawn-creating type of undead; call it Undead Leadership and move on rather than messing around with how to make it happen. An NPC's skill ranks are handwaved rather than specified in detail - maybe he ends up a little ahead or a little behind, but he's never going to make a Craft(Basketweaving) check it doesn't matter. Etc.

Most of the time, the players won't even notice. But it's really critical to keep the game flowing smoothly and keep irrelevant prep to a minimum. Detail the things that matter carefully, and use broad strokes for things which aren't that important.

Jay R
2014-12-24, 09:57 AM
So your example seems to be ''players first'', where you will alter the game reality with the fiat, but only in 100% favor of the players. Though, your version is also ''because I said so'' as the players don't know.

That's a nasty way to twist what I said. All I did was give an example of DM fiat that extended player agency, combined with using it to change the hidden facts to make it all right for an NPC to be killed even when he was plot-critical.


Guess I'm the only one that sees the runaround:

1. DM Fiat is a Very Bad Thing and should not be used.
2. Except if the DM has a Good Reason.
3. So it's ok for a DM to use the DM Fiat all the time.

Yes, you are the only one who sees that. Nobody here has said anything that can be fairly and justly categorized as that.



And when a DM uses a DM fiat, they should not tell the players and all fiats must fall within the game rules.

I have no idea who you think claimed either of these. In my experience, most DM fiat decisions will of necessity happen where the players can't see it. And my example was specifically changing the rules, since in 2E 20 feet is medium range and 30 feet is long range for a dagger throw, and I treated 21 feet like medium range.


Can someone tell me how the ''bad DM fiat'' of DM: The player just made an attack that would kill the NPC that I want to stay alive.....so I'll just ignore the damage and say ''he is baddy wounded, but gets away"

is different from the ''good DM fiat'' of : [I]DM: The player just made an attack that would kill the NPC that I want to stay alive.....so I'll just say his spellcaster minion cast false life on the NPC just before the fight, so the NPC has enough hit points to survive the attack and say ''he is baddy wounded, but gets away".

Anyone?

They aren't significantly different, and neither of them is "good DM fiat". The problem is the phrase "the NPC that I want to stay alive". This kind of DM, if he cannot change the rules to mess up the players, will have no problem doing it some other way.

"DM fiat" isn't to force a plot to remain unchanged. It's to improve the flow or feel of the game. I gave a specific example of using DM fiat to change the situation because the players could kill a plot-critical NPC.

I agree with you that it is a bad thing in the hands of a DM you don't trust. But anything can be a bad thing in the hands of a DM you don't trust. The problem isn't the DM fiat; the problem is the DM.

I haven't played with a DM I don't trust in over twenty years. While Wil, Mike, Dirk, Rob, Nolen, and Bob all have quirks, I trust that they want to make a fun, exciting game. When they make a ruling, I will assume that there is a good reason for it. And if I make a request or critique, I know they will listen to it objectively, and make the best ruling possible based on what I say to them and what they know and I don't. Since there is no way for me to evaluate that decision without being given hidden information, I must have faith that the DM made it as well as he could.

VincentTakeda
2014-12-24, 10:52 AM
One of my favorite new 'great dichotomies' that shows how the game struggles to maintain being fiat heavy is the DC skillcheck... At the end of the day, the DC of whatever it is you're trying to do is patently in the hands of gm fiat. Its a form of fiat that in function is no less powerful than the fiat of a few hit points here or there to avoid a death on one side or the other, but somehow has the 'personality' of being far more acceptable.

It is just as easy for a gm that wants you to be able to succeed your swim check to set the dc at 10 as it is for him to set the swim check he doesnt want you to pass at say.. 40. By letting the gm decide how tough a thing is, the system is tacitly stating that 'fiat' IS the rule... And gingerly qualifies it by suggesting the gm should make sure to be rational and fair about it.

Which is about the best possible way to describe the mechanic. At the end of the day, playing the game, even in a heavy rules, fiat light system is agreeing to a game where fiat is king, and while a gm that wants to keep his players should be mindful of how he wields his fiat, that carte blanche has already been issued.

With great power comes great responsibility.

The 'apex' of this decision is always going to be 'at what point does your fiat become both transparent and intolerable for your players'... While it seems like most players are just fine with the gm setting skillcheck DC's, others will be patently upset if your campaign has an Elminster... If they get the feeling that no matter how powerful they get they would not be able to kill your Elminster if you didnt want them to... Certain kinds of players just will never be happy about that kind of thing. Say what you will, but the difference in power between these two levels of fiat is identical.

I agree. The quantum ogre and xanatos speed chess are not good or evil... They are simply tools used to address the more important question of 'are you using them towards the interest of your own personal fun, or the players fun, and would they, given full transparency knowing that fiat has been activated, agree with your decision that your decision was the most fun version of whats happening.'

I forget which president said it but the phrase is 'never do anything which you would not be happy to have made public'... My advice is to fiat as if none of your fiats were a secret. I of course wouldnt recomment simply announcing every time you use fiat simply because it breaks immersion... But be very mindful of when you do it, why you do it, and if the players would be happy knowing you did and why.

1337 b4k4
2014-12-24, 11:04 AM
Assuming we have an inexperienced but good and willing-to-learn DM, how can said DM prepare the story beforehand such that he won't have to resort to the bad sort of DM fiat?

Honestly, the answer is teach them that they don't need to prepare like that. The sort of things that lead to "tin pot dictator" DM fiat usually arise from having things planned out in too much detail. As a DM you should go into a game with a general idea of where the major players are, what their motivations are and how they plan on getting there, and that's about it. Have a box of mooks and encounters ready to throw in along the way and build the world in response to the actions your players take, rather than building the world first and then trying to mold your players into taking the actions you already planned on. Part of this is teaching new DMs that it is perfectly OK to say "Hey guys, things just went way off the rails here, let's take a 15 minute break so I can collect my notes. Who's turn is it to order pizza?" and pause the game for a few minutes to re-plan things.

What's important to remember is that "player agency" isn't about giving the players whatever they want, or never saying "no" to the players. Agency is about the actions the players take have logical consequences that follow from the actions they choose, and that those choices have meaningful impacts on the world. A lot of newbie DM advice suggests that DMs use a form of the quantum ogre (http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.ca/search/label/series%20%28Quantum%20Ogre%29) to resolve these sorts of things, but while that's an ok training wheels thing (and sometimes it's necessary for fun*) the reality is it's ultimately bad advice because it's destroying player agency, even if they don't know it. If you give your players 6 choices and they all lead to the same outcome, you haven't actually given them any choices at all. A DM willing to learn should practice running things by the seat of their pants. Let your players in on it too, let them know you have a general thrust for things, but that what happens is up to them and the choices they make. Most of the time your players will welcome the honesty, and you'll also find that with the freedom to not have to guess at and tread on the DM's rails, your players will actually become more engaged and give you even more to work with.

Ultimately we should teach new DMs that just because they want to tell the story of the Great Evil Dragon King doesn't mean that the players will have to defeat the Great Evil Dragon King. Maybe they'll ignore him. And that's perfectly OK. What does ignoring the GEDK mean? Do dragonborn start roaming and terrorizing the country side? Do the players find themselves having to pay tribute to pass through areas once free? Does the GEDK hire them to become a goon squad, putting down rebellions? Either way, as long as everyone is having fun, it's all just variations of a story, and variations that occur because the players made choices and those choices matter. If your players one shot the BBEG, what does that mean for them? If they didn't get to hear his evil monologue, maybe they don't know about the greater coming crisis that the BBEG just summoned. Maybe they miss the treasure hidden in the secret lair. Maybe no one believes them, because the BBEG has been terrorizing the town for so long, and "seriously if it was just as easy as using a scroll of Dispel Evil, why didn't Marty the town Cleric do that months ago?" (incidentally, for new DMs, that's where you get new plot hooks from, why didn't Marty use that scroll months ago? What is he hiding?). Again, I can't recommend enough that DMs (new and old alike) check out Dungeon World's advice on running a DW game.

* While Rule 0 may be "if it's cool, run with it" there's a rule that trumps that, which is Rule -1: "If everyone at your table is having fun, that's all that matters". This is after all a game and if you're playing a detective mystery and your players completely skip over all the clues and are wandering aimlessly and getting frustrated, having your clues appear in new locations in more obvious ways - while still a quantum ogre - is not a bad thing, because it's ultimately done in service to Rule -1 and making sure everyone is having a good time. A good DM learns when to use "bad" tools for good effect and for the fun of all. A bad DM uses "bad" tools to indeterminate effect, and for the fun of the DM, but not necessarily the players.

Edit
------------

Incidentally, a key lesson in Dungeon World that would help new DMs out with this is that "you don't have to do this on your own". DW strongly encourages asking questions of your players and playing off of that. In a recent session, one of my players found a magical sword: "The Sword of Sharane, Bastard Daughter of Belarth". As a DM I had nothing prepared on this, it was just a random treasure. Rather than try to build up something on my own, I asked the party bard to tell us about the legend of Sharane, Bastard Daughter of Belarth. A few minutes of back and forth story telling between myself and that bard produced a new legend (now cannon in the game world) that Sharane was the daughter of Belarth, a local elven magistrate, and a Drow woman that he fell in love with. They were married and had a child, despite the local prejudices against the Drow, and the threats from the nearby Drow population. On her 7th birthday, in the middle of her party, Sharane's parents were both brutally murdered by an evil alliance of some local towns folk who felt Belarth had no business marrying a Drow and some of the nearby Drow who viewed Belarth's wife as a traitor to Drow kind. Sharane swore revenge for her parents deaths. And thus, a legend was born, and the sword was declared to be a sword with bonuses against pure blooded Drow and Elves alike. As a DM, in the middle of things, I could have come up with something on my own, but it likely wouldn't have been so quickly and likely wouldn't have been particularly interesting. By asking and involving the players we came up with our own new legend, powers for the sword and a new plot twist (when asked how the Bard knew of this tale, his answer (player choice) was that the bard is actually part Drow himself, descended from another clan in that area. Player agency. The players made choices, they had real and lasting effects on the game world, and the DM got away with not having prepped the magic weapon before hand.

----- End Edit ----------



I agree with you that it is a bad thing in the hands of a DM you don't trust. But anything can be a bad thing in the hands of a DM you don't trust. The problem isn't the DM fiat; the problem is the DM.

I haven't played with a DM I don't trust in over twenty years. While Wil, Mike, Dirk, Rob, Nolen, and Bob all have quirks, I trust that they want to make a fun, exciting game. When they make a ruling, I will assume that there is a good reason for it. And if I make a request or critique, I know they will listen to it objectively, and make the best ruling possible based on what I say to them and what they know and I don't. Since there is no way for me to evaluate that decision without being given hidden information, I must have faith that the DM made it as well as he could.

I would like to echo these comments as well. As a player, it is vital that you trust your DM to run a game that's fun and fair. As a DM it is vital that you trust your players to play fair and cooperate with you and each other. If you can't trust your DM implicitly to run a game that you're completely blind to the rules, and trust that it would be fair and fun (even if it's not your style), then you have a bigger problem than whether your DM is using Fiat or not.

Knaight
2014-12-24, 12:34 PM
Can someone tell me how the ''bad DM fiat'' of DM: The player just made an attack that would kill the NPC that I want to stay alive.....so I'll just ignore the damage and say ''he is baddy wounded, but gets away"

is different from the ''good DM fiat'' of : DM: The player just made an attack that would kill the NPC that I want to stay alive.....so I'll just say his spellcaster minion cast false life on the NPC just before the fight, so the NPC has enough hit points to survive the attack and say ''he is baddy wounded, but gets away".

Anyone?
Those both seem sketchy to me. The DM wants a particular NPC to live, and will railroad to do it.


One of my favorite new 'great dichotomies' that shows how the game struggles to maintain being fiat heavy is the DC skillcheck... At the end of the day, the DC of whatever it is you're trying to do is patently in the hands of gm fiat. Its a form of fiat that in function is no less powerful than the fiat of a few hit points here or there to avoid a death on one side or the other, but somehow has the 'personality' of being far more acceptable.

It is just as easy for a gm that wants you to be able to succeed your swim check to set the dc at 10 as it is for him to set the swim check he doesnt want you to pass at say.. 40. By letting the gm decide how tough a thing is, the system is tacitly stating that 'fiat' IS the rule... And gingerly qualifies it by suggesting the gm should make sure to be rational and fair about it.
That's not the same thing at all. Setting DCs is implementing a rule, involving the GM task of evaluating the difficulty of interacting with a setting element. Application of a more general rule isn't fiat. Both of your examples are, but that's because the rule (setting the DC based on the setting) is being overwritten with railroading.

1337 b4k4
2014-12-24, 01:10 PM
That's not the same thing at all. Setting DCs is implementing a rule, involving the GM task of evaluating the difficulty of interacting with a setting element. Application of a more general rule isn't fiat. Both of your examples are, but that's because the rule (setting the DC based on the setting) is being overwritten with railroading.

Setting the DC if you're choosing the DC and then building to match is absolutely DM fiat. Just because there are rules to get to that point doesn't make the given choice of DC any less fiat than if the DM just said "today, the trees are DC 50 to climb". The only way it's not fiat is if the DM says "There is a tree to climb here, and according to the book, that's DC 20". And even then your DM can pile on modifiers. That's why in these sorts of debates, it really boils down to trusting your DM.

oxybe
2014-12-24, 01:34 PM
@NicheG

I 100% agree that we need to keep the game flowing, and doing so is paramount to being a good GM.

The knowledge checks via NPCs just kinda hit home since it's something that I ran into in my inexperienced GM phase, where I put a sage in my game, gave him a high knowledge skill and after sending the PCs to him (to get the information) I rolled and... flubbed the check. Which was followed by me derping for a bit and just giving them the information somehow.

Then i realized doing it this ways was kinda bull$t and I should really evaluate how I setup my adventures.


One of my favorite new 'great dichotomies' that shows how the game struggles to maintain being fiat heavy is the DC skillcheck... At the end of the day, the DC of whatever it is you're trying to do is patently in the hands of gm fiat. Its a form of fiat that in function is no less powerful than the fiat of a few hit points here or there to avoid a death on one side or the other, but somehow has the 'personality' of being far more acceptable.

It is just as easy for a gm that wants you to be able to succeed your swim check to set the dc at 10 as it is for him to set the swim check he doesnt want you to pass at say.. 40. By letting the gm decide how tough a thing is, the system is tacitly stating that 'fiat' IS the rule... And gingerly qualifies it by suggesting the gm should make sure to be rational and fair about it.

Which is about the best possible way to describe the mechanic. At the end of the day, playing the game, even in a heavy rules, fiat light system is agreeing to a game where fiat is king, and while a gm that wants to keep his players should be mindful of how he wields his fiat, that carte blanche has already been issued.

Just because it's all under the blanket of fiat doesn't make it the same thing due to the context the events are happening. The rules generally demonstrate how swimming works and (in a heavier game) there are probably rules for determining how hard a river (or body of water) is to swim in. This sets the baseline for player expectancy, as would likely the first ruling the GM of a rules lighter game makes.

If you describe the river in front of the players as a torrential rush of choppy water and debris but make the swim check irrelevant because you want the players on the other side, if the players find out you did a fiat, this breaks their agency as their expectation on how the game world works no longer applies... they can't trust that flat, empty plains you described because four steps in, a TRex might appear (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdJSdORSdFM).

Just as bad as if you ramp up the difficulty on rather calm rivers to stop players from crossing. In a way this might actually be worse then the former because they might start associating all forms of water as those high difficulties and simply stop trying to ford rivers or take longer to go around.

Both cases are the GM overturning player expectations via fiat, but it's not just the common delusions that players are prone to making (lord knows i've overthought situations gms have put me in), but it's subverting how the character interacts with the world without plausible reason. Both can lead to potential player apathy, either in that they can't fail or that the GM won't let them succeed at their agenda.

Which is again, a matter of trust.

Just because you have power of fiat doesn't mean you need to swing it around and alter everyone's perceptions.

And yes, if we want to split hairs, setting up an ogre fight beforehand is still fiat on a technicality, but i would expect anyone participating in this discussion to understand that we are not talking about that kind of fiat and it's place in TTRPGs.


Honestly, the answer is teach them that they don't need to prepare like that. The sort of things that lead to "tin pot dictator" DM fiat usually arise from having things planned out in too much detail. As a DM you should go into a game with a general idea of where the major players are, what their motivations are and how they plan on getting there, and that's about it. Have a box of mooks and encounters ready to throw in along the way and build the world in response to the actions your players take, rather than building the world first and then trying to mold your players into taking the actions you already planned on. Part of this is teaching new DMs that it is perfectly OK to say "Hey guys, things just went way off the rails here, let's take a 15 minute break so I can collect my notes. Who's turn is it to order pizza?" and pause the game for a few minutes to re-plan things.


Agreed on this front. When I started GMing, I was (and still am!) horrible at running a game by the seat of my pants and I used to veer towards over-planning and it all came to a point where, in the middle of a game just kinda quit the campaign and burnt out when I realized i had already planned everything and the players, being what they are, kept doing things I was not ready for and throwing me for loops. I thought I was being smart, but the stress and realizations got to me in the end and after I changed how I planned and enacted things made for a more fun game when I decided to tell the players "next time, I'm trying something different", IMO.

Since the very start, and I've been repeating this, fiat isn't bad in and of itself and is necessary due to how TTRPGs tend to have more corner cases and a less rigid structure then other form of games. But there are many, many ways to misuse fiat and a lot of them are easy habits to get into. I've been gaming for what... nearly 20 years now?

And I still have a lot to learn, IMO. Like I said: don't ask me to run things by pulling it out of my posterior. You won't be pleasantly surprised.

In the end the GM is in a position of power, yes, but it's one the players let him take as they chose to place their trust in him that he won't abuse that power by sitting down around the table with him. That trust, where he'll run things fairly and won't pull the rug from under them randomly, is paramount to the game's flow. As a player, I need to be able to trust that my GM won't yank my chain around and deny my actions due to his whim.

Rules heavy or rules light be darned.

jedipotter
2014-12-24, 01:42 PM
both of those are bad and you should feel bad if you use them.

Ok, so sounds like you'd be a Rules First type, am I right? As long as the DM does something in the rules, and does it before a player does anything, it's OK?

So, my question would be how do you enforce this? When anything does not go your characters way, do you just assume the DM had it all planned out before your character took any action? Do you stop the game and demand the DM tell you all the mechanics, rules and game information about an encounter? You you ask the DM to time stamp all things they do? How do you double check the DM?



There is no runaround being given, other then the one you've fabricated for yourself to see.

You, and many others are saying ''DM Fiat is bad, except when you personally approve of the reasons for it, then it's OK.'' I'm just trying to understand.



BUT, and here is the important distinction, if it does come out that the Stoneskin effect was put on retroactively because the GM didn't want Roni to die, he'll lose face and more importantly, player trust.

Right, so if the DM has some time stamped documentation that says ''Roni has Stoneskin cast on himself at 0700'', then it's all OK. Even though the players would not know that..



I don't want my GM to play with the kids gloves on. If the enemy has a stoneskin honestly prepared ahead of time and used before the fight is initiated, then good on him. If the stoneskin is applied midfight and the stats are retroactively refigured because the players are wailing on him harder then expected, then that's bad GMing.

So, do I understand that if a DM takes a couple minutes to ''buff'' and encounter, that you as a player would never ever say anything about it. You would just accept it?



I haven't seen any post in this thread that wasn't clear on the subject: Using fiat to tell a player that their action does not work by virtue of "this isn't the outcome I wanted" is a trait of bad GMs.

Every post is vague. I have not seen a clear one yet. All ask: How do you separate ''what the DM wants'' from ''the story''? Player tries to do action X, player rolls and action fails. So does the player just accept their character ''just failed somehow'' or does the player immediately accuse the DM of using a Fiat to make their character fail?



There is a line on how and when to use fiat. It isn't a binary "always good/always bad" switch. Fiat should be used to cover the corner cases or odd circumstances that
come up during play, either because the player is asking something the rules don't mention or that the circumstances leading up to the fiat require special attention.

Here is thar runaround again. Look what you said above. The Fiat can be used to ''cover the corner cases'', '' odd circumstances'' and ''special'' things....that you personally approve of directly?



These are good uses of fiat: making spot-judgement calls on issues that don't crop up normally. But doing things like "I don't want my bad guy to die so i'll retroactively have him be setup so that if his HP is less then 10, his contingency teleports him home" can sour the player's trust in the GM if it's ever found out, as it brings into question other close calls that may have happened (or seemed to be close calls in the players' eyes).

I'd say a good DM does not tell the players everything....really almost nothing at all.



Again: it's not fiat in itself that's good or bad, but how you use it. But using fiat to kill player agency or as a defense for rules where the intent isn't clear is not how you go about it.

Again your saying ''it's bad, unless I like it, then it's good.'' My questions are: What does it need to be for you to like it? And: In game play how will you as a player know all the details of everything that happens?

Knaight
2014-12-24, 02:07 PM
Setting the DC if you're choosing the DC and then building to match is absolutely DM fiat. Just because there are rules to get to that point doesn't make the given choice of DC any less fiat than if the DM just said "today, the trees are DC 50 to climb". The only way it's not fiat is if the DM says "There is a tree to climb here, and according to the book, that's DC 20". And even then your DM can pile on modifiers. That's why in these sorts of debates, it really boils down to trusting your DM.

That's not any more fiat than the DM deciding that there are trees there in the first place. The employment of a GM's judgement is not the same thing as fiat. Fiat is specifically an override of the rules as understood, to push the game towards a desired result.


So, my question would be how do you enforce this? When anything does not go your characters way, do you just assume the DM had it all planned out before your character took any action? Do you stop the game and demand the DM tell you all the mechanics, rules and game information about an encounter? You you ask the DM to time stamp all things they do? How do you double check the DM?
You double check the DM because people tend to be really, really obvious when they're abusing fiat mechanics.


Right, so if the DM has some time stamped documentation that says ''Roni has Stoneskin cast on himself at 0700'', then it's all OK. Even though the players would not know that..

So, do I understand that if a DM takes a couple minutes to ''buff'' and encounter, that you as a player would never ever say anything about it. You would just accept it?
It's not about documentation, it's about the GM retconning to negate the impact of player choice. The GM playing intelligent enemies intelligently and having them prepare is totally fine, railroading isn't. Moreover, the difference between the two is generally pretty obvious. It's often relatively easy to tell when someone is improvising, and the demeanor during said improvisation often reveals that goal. The demeanor projected when the GM is considering a question like "What would the repurcussions of that be?" is different than the demeanor projected when the GM is considering a question like "How do I force this sort of thing to happen?", which is different than the demeanor projected when the GM is consider a question like "Did I understand the proposed plan wrong, or is it actually just that stupid, because there is no way that this will end well?".


Every post is vague. I have not seen a clear one yet. All ask: How do you separate ''what the DM wants'' from ''the story''? Player tries to do action X, player rolls and action fails. So does the player just accept their character ''just failed somehow'' or does the player immediately accuse the DM of using a Fiat to make their character fail?
If by "just failed somehow" you mean "didn't make the roll", then sure. It's generally accepted, and the GM's description generally indicates why that happened. It's when there is a pattern of behavior that fiat abuse is notable. If the difficulty of doing things always seems to be really high outside of the obvious story the GM is pushing and lower in it, it's pretty clear that fiat is involved. If the GM repeatedly has things happen that push to an outcome, it's pretty clear. So on and so forth.

oxybe
2014-12-24, 02:33 PM
You're a very binary person, aren't you Jedi? You cannot seem to accept that there are shades of gray or even context to a given situation. If I'm wrong, I do apologize, but several attempts have been made to make this clear to you, that context matters where using fiat is involved, but it doesn't seem to sink in.

I do like crunchy rules. I make no attempt to hide this, but I fully understand that there is no way for the rules to cover every aspect possible. Weird corner cases do occur occasionally. A spell, ability or situation are used and the perfect storm of "there is no rule for this" pops up.

At this point the GM needs to be flexible and use fiat to resolve this issue. This is independent of how heavy or light the rules are or how one feels about how fiat can be misused: it's expected that no game can fully cover everything, which is where the GM comes in.


Right, so if the DM has some time stamped documentation that says ''Roni has Stoneskin cast on himself at 0700'', then it's all OK. Even though the players would not know that..

So, do I understand that if a DM takes a couple minutes to ''buff'' and encounter, that you as a player would never ever say anything about it. You would just accept it?

Yes i've had GMs pre-buff enemies and pre-buffed enemies myself. If 5 armed vagrants are kicking down my door and screaming murder, I will use resources I have to protect myself.

But those resources will be set beforehand. Any spell used to pre-buff is now and empty spell slot that can't be used for something else and if the enemy is a wizard, the spellbook will contain that spell.

But it's very different if the Stoneskin is applied mid-fight, out of nowhere, because the GM doesn't want the villain to die right now. Context, again, is important.

In the first case, where an in-game look around will indicate where the defenses came from, the context is clear and is not considered negative fiat. In the latter case, where it's done to entirely remove player agency, where they would have succeeded at a task (killing roni) but the context and observable information was changed without letting them know then it's bad fiat.

A fight with an enemy that has stoneskin applied generally works out much different then one where the enemy doesn't have it pre-cast.

Context, expectations and observable ingame information.


Every post is vague. I have not seen a clear one yet. All ask: How do you separate ''what the DM wants'' from ''the story''? Player tries to do action X, player rolls and action fails. So does the player just accept their character ''just failed somehow'' or does the player immediately accuse the DM of using a Fiat to make their character fail?

Generally speaking the player accepts the failure based on the information given to them at the time of failure, but they still made their choices based off expected results: If your character has been able to, on several past attempts, successfully swim across a calm river in his full plate, then it wouldn't be wrong of him to assume the next calm river should be swimable in his full plate. If the results veer away from similar past situations then a call of "Fiat!" might be made, especially if this occurs several times.

So if our Incredible Swimmer ends up drowning on a swim that he did several times before without issue, if it's because the dice gods hated him and he simply rolls bad then that's acceptable. Everything was as expected but luck simply didn't go with him. For the most part this is observable by the player: I have a +8 to swim and the DC the last 7 times was always 10. Darn, I rolled a 1 and start to sink. 1 again. and again. $%&#. This is accepted.

If he's rolling 10's and 11's though, he should be clearing the expected DC of 10. So either there is an extra complication he wasn't made aware of, which he should now be aware of, or the GM doesn't want him to succeed.

At this point if it's the latter, as Knaight said, and there is an observable pattern where things that go off the GM's plans are extremely difficult while things that follow his story are easy, then the player's agency is ruined as any other action, other then the "correct" one, is futile.


Here is thar runaround again. Look what you said above. The Fiat can be used to ''cover the corner cases'', '' odd circumstances'' and ''special'' things....that you personally approve of directly?

Yes, i guess? Every person likely has a different tolerance for this kind of thing, but they would have a certain point where they simply walk from the table should it get past that point. Context, as I've been saying, is important here, as it allows everyone at the table to understand the circumstances behind the call.


Again your saying ''it's bad, unless I like it, then it's good.'' My questions are: What does it need to be for you to like it? And: In game play how will you as a player know all the details of everything that happens?

It needs context and I expect the GM to be giving me details as they're made available for me to readjust my current expectations by comparing to past ones. To go back to the Swimmer example, If the reason my checks keep failing is because of an additional penalty caused by someone casting a spell to make my armor heavier in water, I expect to be told that my armor feels much heavier then normal once I get into the water.

Observable information and context are needed, and if they're not immediately available, with investigation it should be. If Rino's stoneskin spell came out of nowhere, then it might result in a call of fiat. If it can be observed, after Rino's death/flight, that he had a spellbook with stoneskin in it, then there is little to no likelyhood of fiat being called (barring an unnatural number of spells being cast or something).

Context is absolutely necessary, which is something we've all been talking about and you seem to fail to grasp.

NichG
2014-12-24, 08:00 PM
The knowledge checks via NPCs just kinda hit home since it's something that I ran into in my inexperienced GM phase, where I put a sage in my game, gave him a high knowledge skill and after sending the PCs to him (to get the information) I rolled and... flubbed the check. Which was followed by me derping for a bit and just giving them the information somehow.

Then i realized doing it this ways was kinda bull$t and I should really evaluate how I setup my adventures.

Yeah, I fully agree with this.

jedipotter
2014-12-24, 08:11 PM
You're a very binary person, aren't you Jedi? You cannot seem to accept that there are shades of gray or even context to a given situation. If I'm wrong, I do apologize, but several attempts have been made to make this clear to you, that context matters where using fiat is involved, but it doesn't seem to sink in.

I'm the pure colorless. I say: the DM can do anything at any time for any reason.



In the first case, where an in-game look around will indicate where the defenses came from, the context is clear and is not considered negative fiat. In the latter case, where it's done to entirely remove player agency, where they would have succeeded at a task (killing roni) but the context and observable information was changed without letting them know then it's bad fiat.

But this is where I see the run around: Saying it's ok, except when you think it's not ok. And it's not like a player can always be a great detective and track down every tiny little thing.



Generally speaking the player accepts the failure based on the information given to them at the time of failure, but they still made their choices based off expected results: If your character has been able to, on several past attempts, successfully swim across a calm river in his full plate, then it wouldn't be wrong of him to assume the next calm river should be swimable in his full plate. If the results veer away from similar past situations then a call of "Fiat!" might be made, especially if this occurs several times.

Now see, I say this person is a bad player. For a player to say ''well my character did that action once and it was easy, so that means that forever that action must always be easy for my character'' is just beyond silly. It's exactly like saying ''I killed that goblin with one hit, so the Balor should take one hit too''. Or even just like saying ''I killed one goblin with ease, so all other goblins must be easy too''. And even to use your river example...is ever river in the world the same? Even if the character swim across 100 times...might something change on time 101?



Yes, i guess? Every person likely has a different tolerance for this kind of thing, but they would have a certain point where they simply walk from the table should it get past that point. Context, as I've been saying, is important here, as it allows everyone at the table to understand the circumstances behind the call.

I agree the player should not know.



It needs context and I expect the GM to be giving me details as they're made available for me to readjust my current expectations by comparing to past ones. To go back to the Swimmer example, If the reason my checks keep failing is because of an additional penalty caused by someone casting a spell to make my armor heavier in water, I expect to be told that my armor feels much heavier then normal once I get into the water.

Ah, finally a good point. You expect, as a player, to be told everything that effects your character. And then you will, of course, ''pretend'' like your character does not know.

Now this makes sense, you want to be ''Co-DM'' or at least ''make the DM just a Player''.



Context is absolutely necessary, which is something we've all been talking about and you seem to fail to grasp.

Though here ''context'' is used as ''what I think is good and right in a way I can't tell you, but I know perfectly by heart.''

So, you would let it go, as long as you can connect the dots. You just need an empty potion bottle labeled with the spell effect and you will tell yourself ''ah, he drank this right before the fight''...even if the DM did make it up retroactively on the spot. As long as you can put the ducks in a row everything is ok.

Arbane
2014-12-24, 08:29 PM
In the end the GM is in a position of power, yes, but it's one the players let him take as they chose to place their trust in him that he won't abuse that power by sitting down around the table with him. That trust, where he'll run things fairly and won't pull the rug from under them randomly, is paramount to the game's flow. As a player, I need to be able to trust that my GM won't yank my chain around and deny my actions due to his whim.

Rules heavy or rules light be darned.

Yes.

Consider: How many RPGs have any sort of Player's Fiat?

kellbyb
2014-12-24, 08:50 PM
I'm the pure colorless. I say: the DM can do anything at any time for any reason.

I say: Just because you can do something does not necessarily say you should.



Now see, I say this person is a bad player. For a player to say ''well my character did that action once and it was easy, so that means that forever that action must always be easy for my character'' is just beyond silly.

NO, it isn't. If I can succeed at a given task consistently over a large set of examples, it isn't just going to get harder for no apparent reason.


It's exactly like saying ''I killed that goblin with one hit, so the Balor should take one hit too''.

That's a strawman and you know it. It is nothing like that.


Or even just like saying ''I killed one goblin with ease, so all other goblins must be easy too''.

As a general rule, the rank and file goblins will go down in roughly the same number of hits. When you face PC's with tougher versions of the same monsters, visual cues are nice to let them know that they've come across something different.


And even to use your river example...is ever river in the world the same? Even if the character swim across 100 times...might something change on time 101?

It's very easy to notice differences in rivers. If it has a higher swim DC, it's going to have a visibly faster current. Stick some foam or rapids on it. Have it make a distinctive noise. Maybe just point out that the water is noticeably moving faster. The bottom line is that lazy river A should be no harder or easier to swim in than lazy river B. Rushing river, on the other hand, will obviously be harder than either of the lazy rivers.


So, you would let it go, as long as you can connect the dots. You just need an empty potion bottle labeled with the spell effect and you will tell yourself ''ah, he drank this right before the fight''...even if the DM did make it up retroactively on the spot. As long as you can put the ducks in a row everything is ok.

That works for me. As long as everything happens in an understandable and believable way, I will not suspect DM fiat. That said, if it happens systematically, in a way that consistently nullifies my choices as a player, I will get suspicious.

jedipotter
2014-12-24, 09:28 PM
I say: Just because you can do something does not necessarily say you should.


Sounds just fine, but is way to vague.




NO, it isn't. If I can succeed at a given task consistently over a large set of examples, it isn't just going to get harder for no apparent reason.

This is not true. The DMG has rules for tailoring things specifically to a character. It's in the rules. But still it's silly to even say ''well one goblin had an AC of 14, so every goblin in the world must have the same AC.



That's a strawman and you know it. It is nothing like that.

It is exactly like that. Anything can be anything at any time. You simply can't compare anything.



As a general rule, the rank and file goblins will go down in roughly the same number of hits. When you face PC's with tougher versions of the same monsters, visual cues are nice to let them know that they've come across something different.

I'd note your general rule is not a rule. And really makes no sense. I have a goblin group of 5 warriors, 5 rogues, 3 adept, and two bards. All are ''rank and file goblins''. But each is vastly different.

And, in your view, how does a player tell if a monster is tougher? How can you tell 3rd level from 4th level? Does each monster get ''one scar per level?'' What makes a 4th level adept look so different then a 2nd level one. And for the real kicker....if you want to say ''4th level adepts wear a pointy hat so the players know they are 4th level'', then why can't the goblin just take off the hat?

Sorry, telling each of the same monster apart is a video game thing, not a D&D thing.




It's very easy to notice differences in rivers. If it has a higher swim DC, it's going to have a visibly faster current. Stick some foam or rapids on it. Have it make a distinctive noise. Maybe just point out that the water is noticeably moving faster. The bottom line is that lazy river A should be no harder or easier to swim in than lazy river B. Rushing river, on the other hand, will obviously be harder than either of the lazy rivers.

The example was either the same river or a river that looked exactly like the last easy river.



That works for me. As long as everything happens in an understandable and believable way, I will not suspect DM fiat. That said, if it happens systematically, in a way that consistently nullifies my choices as a player, I will get suspicious.

This is where I part with everyone else. When it's said ''as a player I won't suspect anything, until I randomly decide to for either no reason or an arbitrary reason.'' It's like saying ''if my character fails more then five open locks, then I'll get mad'' or worse ''When I kinda sort of just feel like it''.

kellbyb
2014-12-24, 10:04 PM
Sounds just fine, but is way to vague.

Right back at you.


It is exactly like that. Anything can be anything at any time. You simply can't compare anything.

That's what I'm trying to say. Making the assumption that goblins and pit fiends have the same health is beyond idiotic.


I'd note your general rule is not a rule. And really makes no sense. I have a goblin group of 5 warriors, 5 rogues, 3 adept, and two bards. All are ''rank and file goblins''. But each is vastly different.

Yes, and the players should immediately see that because the kobolds would be using different kinds of gear. The warriors would wear splint mail and wield longswords and heavy shields, the rogues would wear studded leather armor and carry knives and crossbows, the adepts would wear cloth and hold staves, and the bards would also carry musical instruments. This is a rough approximation, but my point is that they still have noticeable differences.


And, in your view, how does a player tell if a monster is tougher? How can you tell 3rd level from 4th level? Does each monster get ''one scar per level?'' What makes a 4th level adept look so different then a 2nd level one. And for the real kicker....if you want to say ''4th level adepts wear a pointy hat so the players know they are 4th level'', then why can't the goblin just take off the hat?

I really doesn't take much more to kill an adept 4 than and adept 2, so making a visual distinction there is pointless. By the time the level gap is big enough to be significant, the players should have moved on to bigger and scarier monsters than kobolds.


Sorry, telling each of the same monster apart is a video game thing, not a D&D thing.

Let's just say we have different opinions on this and leave it at that. I don't think either of us can win this one.


The example was either the same river or a river that looked exactly like the last easy river.

Yes, and I was trying to demonstrate what it should be like.



This is where I part with everyone else. When it's said ''as a player I won't suspect anything, until I randomly decide to for either no reason or an arbitrary reason.''

That's not what I said. Conformity to expectations of plausibility may be subjective, but it is most definitely arbitrary.


It's like saying ''if my character fails more then five open locks, then I'll get mad'' or worse ''When I kinda sort of just feel like it''.

If my character fails to open a certain kind of lock five times, I will just assume that that kind of lock is outside my skill level. If I open a certain kind of lock on multiple single-digit rolls, then suddenly fail, again the the same lock, on a 19, I will certainly get suspicious. Please stop twisting my words.

oxybe
2014-12-24, 10:10 PM
Jedipotter, you're either being deliberately obtuse at this point or arguing for the sake of arguing. Either way, after this post i'm done "discussing" with you.


I'm the pure colorless. I say: the DM can do anything at any time for any reason.
Just because the GM can do anything doesn't mean he should, and it also doesn't mean he's in the right. It just means that he's putting forward the power the players allow him, because at the end of the day, if the players aren't having fun they're free to seek out other forms of entertainment that will amuse them and the GM is left playing with himself.


But this is where I see the run around: Saying it's ok, except when you think it's not ok. And it's not like a player can always be a great detective and track down every tiny little thing.
No runaround here. But as a GM you should be prepared to show your work in case the players do manage to track down the information. And things like buff spells aren't hard to find leads. For a wizard it'll be in his spellbook. For clerics and the like, you can probably gather based off their holy symbols what their deity can grant them. This isn't anything like your hyperbole of requiring to be a "great detective", but rather simply thinking logically based off information provided, either directly or indirectly. And happens when they happen to be a great detective and do figure it out?


Now see, I say this person is a bad player. For a player to say ''well my character did that action once and it was easy, so that means that forever that action must always be easy for my character'' is just beyond silly. It's exactly like saying ''I killed that goblin with one hit, so the Balor should take one hit too''. Or even just like saying ''I killed one goblin with ease, so all other goblins must be easy too''. And even to use your river example...is ever river in the world the same? Even if the character swim across 100 times...might something change on time 101?

This is rather stretching, and very much looks like you're misconstruing what i'm saying just to be argumentative. My post, the one you quoted just before writing this down, even contains an examples :"your character has been able to, on several past attempts, successfully swim across a calm river in his full plate, then it wouldn't be wrong of him to assume the next calm river should be swimable in his full plate".

Is every river the same? No. But the D&D skill system is pretty abstract in how it handles things and unless the circumstances are different, two rivers with the water speed should be the same DC, or very close at least. If there are reasons that Calm River B is more difficult to ford then Calm River A, this is information the players should be able to gather.

As for goblins, the traditional D&D ones aren't likely to be wearing new armor and carrying magical blades. those are likely the standout ones of the tribe. But the rank-and-file mooks dressed in cat pelts and carrying shivs? I fully expect those ones to go down about as quickly as the last. There might be a level or two difference between the various mooks and some HP variance, but if Mook 1 dies in 2 strokes and Mook 2 takes 6 stokes (assuming average damage being done), without any sort of cue that would indicate why I would call this immersion breaking at the very least: the information you're given doesn't match up with your expectation or the reality of play, but then again I don't expect a level 10 goblin to have the same flavour text as his mooks: ignoring that he's likely to be using gear he's scavenged off adventurers and hoarded for himself, his demeanor is likely to show more skill and adeptness at combat.


I agree the player should not know.
Is this a non-sequitur? What I'm saying is the players need to be given as much information as possible, based on what their characters are interacting with and seeing, to make decisions, but if there is hidden information (like pre-cast spells), it should also be available with some legwork.


Ah, finally a good point. You expect, as a player, to be told everything that effects your character. And then you will, of course, ''pretend'' like your character does not know.

Now this makes sense, you want to be ''Co-DM'' or at least ''make the DM just a Player''

Yes I expect to be told when something is affecting my character, because it's affecting my character. My character would realize that he's being affected by a debuff. He might not know what the debuff itself is, at least not without doing a check or something, but he will understand that there is something causing him to hit with less accuracy, or cause him to be hit more often.

Why would i "pretend" my character doesn't know what's affecting him? I will play my character with him knowing what he's observed. If it can't be observed immediately he won't know it until it comes up, if it does come up.

I also don't appreciate the snide "Now this makes sense, you want to be ''Co-DM'' or at least ''make the DM just a Player"" remark.


Though here ''context'' is used as ''what I think is good and right in a way I can't tell you, but I know perfectly by heart.''

So, you would let it go, as long as you can connect the dots. You just need an empty potion bottle labeled with the spell effect and you will tell yourself ''ah, he drank this right before the fight''...even if the DM did make it up retroactively on the spot. As long as you can put the ducks in a row everything is ok.

If the GM is capable of keeping the wool over my eyes, it's not "ok" but rather I'm simply oblivious to the fact that he's doing it... he just hasn't been caught yet. I've yet to meet a GM capable of doing that for long periods of time though. They eventually slip up and lose trust from the players. I've walked out on those GMs and haven't looked back.

Either way, I'm done with you.

NichG
2014-12-24, 10:20 PM
Sounds just fine, but is way to vague.

This is where I part with everyone else. When it's said ''as a player I won't suspect anything, until I randomly decide to for either no reason or an arbitrary reason.'' It's like saying ''if my character fails more then five open locks, then I'll get mad'' or worse ''When I kinda sort of just feel like it''.

If you expect your players to live with uncertainty, isn't it hypocritical to expect that you should be able to completely avoid uncertainty yourself?

There's no magic rule that says 'if I DM exactly this way, my players are obligated to love me'.

jedipotter
2014-12-24, 10:40 PM
If you expect your players to live with uncertainty, isn't it hypocritical to expect that you should be able to completely avoid uncertainty yourself?

There's no magic rule that says 'if I DM exactly this way, my players are obligated to love me'.

I don't care about uncertainty....but I'm not sure.

And if the players had a good and fun game, i do expect them to not obsess over why ''when my character tried to do X at 9:15 why it did not work''.


Yes, you are the only one who sees that. Nobody here has said anything that can be fairly and justly categorized as that.

Then please give me your rules.
1.When and how should a DM use the DM Fiat?
2.How do the players know anything, but specifically how do they know if something was ''just normal game play'' or ''A Fiat''?





I have no idea who you think claimed either of these. In my experience, most DM fiat decisions will of necessity happen where the players can't see it. And my example was specifically changing the rules, since in 2E 20 feet is medium range and 30 feet is long range for a dagger throw, and I treated 21 feet like medium range.

Ok, so this is Tell the Players Nothing. So whatever the DM does, the players just have to accept it.




And if I make a request or critique, I know they will listen to it objectively, and make the best ruling possible based on what I say to them and what they know and I don't. Since there is no way for me to evaluate that decision without being given hidden information, I must have faith that the DM made it as well as he could.

I agree with this, and it's kinda my whole point. The players don't know all the details. So sure from the unhappy players point of view they will just cry ''Bad DM Fiat!'' every time anything does not go their way. Though the good players understand that dozens of things could have happened, that they don't know about, that can effect the out come of anything...and just keep on gaming.



I would like to echo these comments as well. As a player, it is vital that you trust your DM to run a game that's fun and fair. As a DM it is vital that you trust your players to play fair and cooperate with you and each other. If you can't trust your DM implicitly to run a game that you're completely blind to the rules, and trust that it would be fair and fun (even if it's not your style), then you have a bigger problem than whether your DM is using Fiat or not.

So here is the question: How do you get that faith and trust in the DM, unless you know all the details? Sure if the Dm comes out and says ''Ha,ha you guys can't get into the vault!'', you'd kinda know....but if the DM says nothing, how do you know?

Frenth Alunril
2014-12-24, 10:48 PM
If the GM is capable of keeping the wool over my eyes, it's not "ok" but rather I'm simply oblivious to the fact that he's doing it... he just hasn't been caught yet. I've yet to meet a GM capable of doing that for long periods of time though. They eventually slip up and lose trust from the players. I've walked out on those GMs and haven't looked back.

Well, I'm sure they were happy to see you go. Who currently runs your games and how much do you trust them?

Trolling aside, I run a game in Faerun. It is set in an outpost mining town which is near the Galena mountains along the bottomless bog in Vaasa. According to all the material, there is no city there. Purely through fiat the city exists. Research and you can give me 1000 reasons it is wrong, or play with me and accept my decree, and share with me an understanding of why it is right.

It is within my agency to explain everything that happens in the world, it is purely your agency to explain to me how you feel and react to that.

DM fiat is the only way the games work.

When players try to enter the realm of the DM by quoting rules and stats they are breaching the contract of the game, "enter my world, and the promise of adventure will bring us hours of entertainment."

Do people get catty and childish, sure, does it ruin games, always, does this mean dm fiat is bad?

Correlation is not causation. People can fall through the ice, I don't want ice in my drink, it kills people. DM can ruin a game with fiat, I don't want fiat in my game, it ruins games.

1337 b4k4
2014-12-24, 11:38 PM
That's not any more fiat than the DM deciding that there are trees there in the first place. The employment of a GM's judgement is not the same thing as fiat. Fiat is specifically an override of the rules as understood, to push the game towards a desired result.


Well, to be honest, deciding to put a tree there is DM fiat. That's why some people people (like I'm assuming based on statements, Jedi Potter) have an issue with the dichotomy between "good" and "bad" levels of DM fiat and the idea that rules can control your DM, because ultimately what you encounter and how hard it is is 100% up to DM, whether there are rules about it or not.

But on to your second statement, that "Fiat is specifically an override of the rules", this is true in some cases, but not all. For example, the folks who disliked the amount of DM fiat the D&D 5e skill system expects, and complaining about how it will lead to inconsistency between tables and DMs are not complaining that the rules are being overridden, but that there are no rules in the first place. Personally I think a better definition of DM fiat would be "any time a DM makes an executive (and exclusive) decision about the fictional world and how it relates, presents or reacts to the players".


It's very easy to notice differences in rivers. If it has a higher swim DC, it's going to have a visibly faster current. Stick some foam or rapids on it. Have it make a distinctive noise. Maybe just point out that the water is noticeably moving faster. The bottom line is that lazy river A should be no harder or easier to swim in than lazy river B. Rushing river, on the other hand, will obviously be harder than either of the lazy rivers.

Not to say that every instance of an "easy" looking task being hard will be this case, but this is not always true. Take for example the Bolton Strid, part of a larger river that at times is a mere 6 feet across, and on a nice summers day looks no more dangerous than any other brook or large stream. Yet it is so deep and dangerous that, per legend, no one who has gone in has survived. Appearances can be deceiving. See also the idiom "still water runs deep".



So here is the question: How do you get that faith and trust in the DM, unless you know all the details? Sure if the Dm comes out and says ''Ha,ha you guys can't get into the vault!'', you'd kinda know....but if the DM says nothing, how do you know?

Trust is about not knowing the details. If you know all the details, then no trust is involved.

NichG
2014-12-24, 11:42 PM
I don't care about uncertainty....but I'm not sure.

And if the players had a good and fun game, i do expect them to not obsess over why ''when my character tried to do X at 9:15 why it did not work''.


That's all well and good, but there isn't a particular rule that if you follow it you're going to guarantee that all players will have a 'good and fun game'. Players are people, so they're convoluted and nuanced and irrational and so on. It's not reasonable to expect someone can tell you 'here is the rule of when I will enjoy you using fiat, which can be evaluated completely objectively and with perfect accuracy'.

Certainly you can have rules of thumb for it, but they're all going to have subjectivity, grey areas, etc.

Jay R
2014-12-24, 11:58 PM
Then please give me your rules.
1.When and how should a DM use the DM Fiat?

When in his best judgment, it will improve the game.


2.How do the players know anything, but specifically how do they know if something was ''just normal game play'' or ''A Fiat''?

They don't, but if they trust the DM, they assume that it was a good decision, or at worst, an honest mistake.

And if they don't trust the DM, the game will fall apart from distrust and suspicion no matter what the DM does.

Here are my actual rules:
1. Play with a DM you trust.
2. Then trust the DM.

Rules for the DM:
1. Justify their trust.
2. Make them a great game.


Ok, so this is Tell the Players Nothing. So whatever the DM does, the players just have to accept it.

"just have to"? I suppose so, but it's a backwards way to look at it. Trusting the DM is necessary to a good game in the first place.


I agree with this, and it's kinda my whole point. The players don't know all the details. So sure from the unhappy players point of view they will just cry ''Bad DM Fiat!'' every time anything does not go their way. Though the good players understand that dozens of things could have happened, that they don't know about, that can effect the out come of anything...and just keep on gaming.

The unhappy players you describe make a game impossible no matter how the DM runs the game. They will get just as mad at a perfect DM who never changes the rules. Things wont always go their way, so they will just cry ''Bad DM Fiat!'' every time anything does not go their way.


So here is the question: How do you get that faith and trust in the DM, unless you know all the details?

You don't know what "trust" means, do you? If you need to know all the details, then you already distrust the DM.

You get the trust by playing with a DM you trust.


Sure if the Dm comes out and says ''Ha,ha you guys can't get into the vault!'', you'd kinda know....but if the DM says nothing, how do you know?

Because you agreed to play in his game -- precisely because you think he is fair.

Knaight
2014-12-25, 01:26 PM
Yes.

Consider: How many RPGs have any sort of Player's Fiat?

Quite a few actually. There are a lot of fairly explicit rules regarding the addition of appropriate background elements as an assumed thing, there are codified metagame point systems that explicitly include fiat elements, so on and so forth.

ImNotTrevor
2014-12-26, 05:55 PM
I feel like chipping in. Perhaps I'm wading into a proverbial fecal storm, but I've brought my +3 Metaphorical Poncho with me.

When it comes to DM Fiat, I believe that the DM should always follow the most important rule: "THE RULE...OF COOL." Yes, the dramatic pause is an essential part of the spelling.

The rule of cool works like this:
DM fiat should be used to adjust the mood or create dramatic tension only, and should never be used to userp player agency, and more often should be used to enhance it, or have no affect on it at all.

Examples:

ENHANCING PLAYER AGENCY WITH THE RULE OF COOL:
Our local PC Cleric was in battle and unfortunately hadn't had many opportunities to shine in that session. It was his first time playing as a Cleric, and he was fairly new to D&D and so he was adjusting to it.

Suddenly, two of our guys are duking it out with baddies and Cleric is nearby. Suddenly he asks me, "What if I just roll past this guy and then.." and proceeds to describe im detail a Matrix-style double healing craziness which sounds like the kind of maneuver that would be remembered forever. So I said, and I quote, "According to the rules for the spell, you can't do that. So don't expect this to happen again. With that in mind, roll for tumble you beautiful bastard." And he made the check. And I let him divide the healing spell in half between both of them. Was there a rule for that? Probably somewhere. I wasn't going to slow down play to figure that out. It was cool, everyone remembered it, and we still tell the story of what happened. The fact that it was Fiat was forgotten by everyone but me, amd our Cleric felt like a rockstar for the rest of the game. No one else felt bad about it, or at least not bad enough to say anything or change behavior significantly. The fun of the game was preserved, even though I totally fudged rules and they knew it. The Rule of Cool won the day.

USING THE RULE OF COOL TO HAVE NO AFFECT ON PLAYER AGENCY WHATSOEVER. AKA, ENHANCING THE DRAMA 101

At the end of that same campaign, our characters found themselves facing down an injured and thoroughly insane God of Madness.
I had never homebrewed a God before, so I didn't really know what I was doing, and I just had one goal in mind:
"This is the culmination of months of adventuring. My players know that this campaign ends tonight and so they need to have a truly Epic sendoff. RULE OF COOL is in maximum effect this evening. Also I need to fill at least half an hour, so this thing better be tanky."

After about 10 minutes, I found that I had not made it tanky enough. They were going to be finishing really early and in an easy and fairly boring manner. So I modified the stats of the critter on the fly. The Mad God threw itself into an psychotic fit when its original HP ran out, and it began to attack more often and deal more damage. It amplified the danger, extended their final battle, and they had no complaints because they felt like their campaign had a suitably epic ending. One that we still talk about.


At the end of the day, DM fiat is just a tool, like a Hammer. A hammer is a useful tool for jobs where nails have to be put into place. DM fiat is a good tool to heighten dramatic tension or make a moment memorable for ALL THE RIGHT REASONS.

As for the rest, I agree with others that when used to railroad or control or exhert dominion over your players and deny them agency, it is bad.

They key is to be flexible and allow yourself to make up stuff on the fly. I personally don't designate someone as a recurring villain. I make enemies that have high stats and important information on them. If they die, ok. If they escape, give them a name and make sure they make your PCs pissed off before they escape.

I have an overarching and vague plot that gives incentives to follow it. Lace it with enough mystery to make them curious, and give them enough details that they want to find out more.

If you're DMing so you can control the story every step of the way, you're doing it wrong. If you're DMing so you can have control, you need to not DM.
If you're DMing because you love playing the game, and want to send your buds on a wild ride on the weekends and just kick back and play a damn game, which is what d&d IS, then you're doing it right.

I didn't get into d&d because I was told that a guy made an awesome build that pumps out ridiculous damage every turn. I got into d&d because I heard stories of a wizard getting touched by a goblin he didn't like, so he effing imploded him. And stories of that same character later catching up to a villain that the party hated, and then killing him. Then raising him from the dead so they could kill him a second time.
Stories of undead minotaurs named Bones who get sent in to do all the stupid stuff.
Half-Giants breaking down doors by throwing goblins at them amd lighting rooms on fire by carrying around casks of explosove fluid for giggles.

That's what makes the game fun. Remember that, and you have a much harder time screwing up.

Mr.Moron
2014-12-29, 04:05 PM
Generally speaking there is a subset of players that wants to "Win". They see the GM* as obstacle to be overcome and adversary to be defeated. Given current conditions and what they see as likely outcomes they use a strict RAW interpretation to develop set of possible challenges. They tune their character to overcome as many of the challenges in that set with as little variability as possible ,weighted against probability of that problem and the severity of the consequences.

In this way the players that seek to "Win" by solving the game ahead of time. That is to say they develop series of If->Then RAW based mechanical solutions to the set of problems they foresee.

When they fail to win, because an element they hadn't solved for is introduced, particularly when that introduction comes via deviation from the RAW, they feel cheated. They had solved the game ahead of time and to their mind the GM has robbed them of they victory they earned as an element they hadn't solved for is being introduced after their plan was developed.


*In some cases, the other players to a certain extent as well. Though this varies based on if they want their "Team" to win or if they want to win-out above all others involved in the matter.

Frenth Alunril
2014-12-29, 04:22 PM
Generally speaking there is a subset of players that wants to "Win".
There has to be a gif of Chevy Chase shouting, "I win at dungeons and dragons!"

CarpeGuitarrem
2014-12-29, 05:01 PM
Ultimately, I think that the primary role of the GM is to arbitrate the result which makes sense in the game. The GM should set a world in motion, with plots and objectives and other characters, but they need to be vulnerable and open to those things being changed by the characters. They need to be honest with themselves regarding the rules they are using and the way that the world is modeled by the game.

I personally take it even further (I have a pretty strong "let the dice fall where they may" philosophy for my games), but not everyone needs to go that far. I think of undesireable results as a challenge--sometimes, things don't turn out the way that we want them to. That's part of how the game works, and that's why we roll the dice and have the rules of a game.

To me, DM Fiat is like playing Monopoly and deciding "hey, I think we should get more than $200 for passing Go, because $200 is really not enough", and wanting to change that rule in the middle of the game. Because you think it would make things better. The problem is, the more you decide to fudge and change the rules, the less able you are to use the rules for strong gaming.

I'd also like to add that in a lot of games, there's a deliberate bit of gray area that calls for GM interpretation. It's not DM Fiat to give an interpretation there--in fact, that's the oldest role of the GM: GM As Referee. DM Fiat is when you change things because you don't like how they turned out.

BRC
2014-12-29, 05:23 PM
Ultimately, I think that the primary role of the GM is to arbitrate the result which makes sense in the game. The GM should set a world in motion, with plots and objectives and other characters, but they need to be vulnerable and open to those things being changed by the characters. They need to be honest with themselves regarding the rules they are using and the way that the world is modeled by the game.

I personally take it even further (I have a pretty strong "let the dice fall where they may" philosophy for my games), but not everyone needs to go that far. I think of undesireable results as a challenge--sometimes, things don't turn out the way that we want them to. That's part of how the game works, and that's why we roll the dice and have the rules of a game.

To me, DM Fiat is like playing Monopoly and deciding "hey, I think we should get more than $200 for passing Go, because $200 is really not enough", and wanting to change that rule in the middle of the game. Because you think it would make things better. The problem is, the more you decide to fudge and change the rules, the less able you are to use the rules for strong gaming.

I'd also like to add that in a lot of games, there's a deliberate bit of gray area that calls for GM interpretation. It's not DM Fiat to give an interpretation there--in fact, that's the oldest role of the GM: GM As Referee. DM Fiat is when you change things because you don't like how they turned out.

I've got a bit of a different philosophy.
I think the DM's job is to Make the Game as enjoyable as possible for everyone involved. Obviously, DM's can go very wrong in pursuing this goal, but that does not mean the goal is wrong, merely the method of execution.
Dm Fiat is a powerful, unsubtle tool that can be used to pursue that goal.

Now, when DM Fiat is used, it usually means that the game ended up hinging on a single roll, with the DM changing the roll in order to "preserve" the game. Most games should be flexible enough that a single pass/failure on a roll is not enough to ruin them.

Where it comes in is what the DM sees as "ruining" their game. Oftentimes, this goes hand-in-hand with overbearing, railroading DMs trying to remove player agency. The DM's favorite AWESOME COOL NINJA NPC should NEVER take damage from those lowly PCs, so they Fiat away every hit into a miss.

That said, consider the circumstances where somebody might bring up a DM Fiat story on a forum. It won't be that time the DM Fiated away that round 1 max damage crit that would have doomed the party. Mostly, its going to be people complaining about overbearing DMs using the power of DM Fiat to take away player agency.

Mr.Moron
2014-12-29, 05:55 PM
To me, DM Fiat is like playing Monopoly and deciding "hey, I think we should get more than $200 for passing Go, because $200 is really not enough", and wanting to change that rule in the middle of the game. Because you think it would make things better. The problem is, the more you decide to fudge and change the rules, the less able you are to use the rules for strong gaming.


Note the comparison to a strictly-competitive game with a closed possibility space to frame the criticism. Very telling.

CarpeGuitarrem
2014-12-29, 07:29 PM
Telling of what?

Roxxy
2014-12-29, 08:24 PM
I think it really comes down to how it's done. You can't just go around invalidating player actions and abilities because they throw a wrench in your game. I mean, you could sit there at the table and do it, but it's a really bad idea. What's better is to think of what you would really not like to see in your game, and exclude those elements before the game ever begins, making sure the players know those elements are excluded. For example, I do not like dealing with teleportation. I handled this by not allowing teleportation in the first place, rather than by using fiat to mess with it every time a player tries to use it. Same with raising the dead. I'm pretty clear about how you cannot actually do that. The other important thing is that, if you are like me and exclude a lot of common tropes from the game, you need to counterbalance all the NO by adding in some YES. I'm not including gnomes in my setting? I added a new homebrew race and made orcs and drow standard player races. Don't have teleportation or resurrection magics and make it easier for casters to fail to cast a spell? Allow all the Super Genius spell variant books and let spellcasters cast a variant spell in place of a known or prepared spell for free. Channeling positive energy heals undead and magic can't stop bleed, cure disease and poison, or stabilize the dying? Clerics and Paladins don't have to stick to channeling a specific type of energy. So on and so forth. When the GM taketh away, the GM also giveth. When you just get heavy on the bannings, it starts to look like That Fiat GM. Also, outline all these rules beforehand. Changing rules during the game is annoying, and if a rules change or the story being told (Law enforcement campaign? Probably shouldn't roll up a thieving rogue.) invalidates a character concept or playstyle this needs to be known upfront.

Jay R
2014-12-29, 11:05 PM
To me, DM Fiat is like playing Monopoly and deciding "hey, I think we should get more than $200 for passing Go, because $200 is really not enough", and wanting to change that rule in the middle of the game. Because you think it would make things better. The problem is, the more you decide to fudge and change the rules, the less able you are to use the rules for strong gaming.

If that's what you think it's like, then I understand your disapproval. I would not play with any DM who made things seem like that, whether he was using DM fiat or not.

DM fiat is for arbitrating the result which makes sense in the game, when the system fails to do so.

It works perfectly if:
1. The players trust the DM, and
2. The DM deserves their trust.

But it cannot work in any situation in which the players would react as if the DM had decided that we should get more than $200 and changed it in the middle for no better reason than that.

Which of the two reasons listed above says it can't work? I have no idea. Either the players don't trust the DM, and have falsely characterized his action, or the DM actually did something like that and doesn't deserve their trust. Obviously, without knowing more about the situation, I can't tell which it is.

And that's the danger of DM fiat - the players never kn ow enough of the hidden information to know whether it was the right decision. You have to actually trust the DM, and not accuse his actions of being like that. This is no problem for me, because I would rather not play than play with a DM I don't trust. So any DM I play with has my support to use DM fiat whenever he or she believes it's warranted. And I will do my best to assume he's made the right decision.

CarpeGuitarrem
2014-12-30, 02:38 AM
To me, my main objection is that it seems like a declaration of bad faith in the game and its designer. (which may certainly be justified when it comes to some games, of course) There's areas of some rules deliberately open, granted, but where the rules are clear, I'm really not okay with the DM overriding things just because they don't like how the rules stand. Unless they're being transparent about it.

That said, I understand where it comes from--D&D has traditionally been a very "hack it yourself" system from the get-go, with conflicting and sometimes cumbersome systems that demand houseruling and fiat to work well. That doesn't necessarily mean that should be the standard for RPGs, though.

Tyndmyr
2014-12-30, 08:15 AM
Well, the ultimate expression of DM Fiat is freeform, in which there are no rules whatsoever. All fiat(be it mutually agreed upon by the participants or ajudicated by a DM). This is not a very popular system, and when it is used, mutual agreement seems preferred over adjudication. Instead people would usually rather pay money, sometimes fairly large amounts of it, to get rule systems that handle much of that for them.

This indicates a pretty strong overall preference for less fiat. If it usually overrules free and not having to read through a stack of rules, it's gotta be pretty strong indeed. So, why does fiat come up?

Well, no ruleset is perfect. And giving "permission" for users to change things(something they could do in any case, regardless of if it's said or not), takes basically zero effort. So, it's a super easy patch job. It's WAY less work than trying to actually fix problems as they arise, and seriously, most systems can't be bothered with proper errata and so forth anyway.

Yknow how video games sometimes are terrible on launch because designers have the crutch of patching it later? This is the equivalent crutch for RPGs.

The best systems are the ones where you have to resort to fiat the least. If it's coming up constantly, then clearly that system is not supporting your playstyle well, and you may wish to consider a different system. You pay good money so the system takes care of stuff for you, if it's not doing that...why keep supporting them?

Jay R
2014-12-30, 10:12 AM
To me, my main objection is that it seems like a declaration of bad faith in the game and its designer.

It is absurd to call playing a game as its designers intended a declaration of bad faith. From original D&D, through D&D to 3.5E at least (I have no experience with anything past 3.5E), the rules have included a statement that the DM is the final authority, and can override any written rule.

That being the case, it would be more accurate to say that refusing to use DM fiat is a declaration of bad faith in the game and its designer.

1337 b4k4
2014-12-30, 11:01 AM
To me, my main objection is that it seems like a declaration of bad faith in the game and its designer. (which may certainly be justified when it comes to some games, of course) There's areas of some rules deliberately open, granted, but where the rules are clear, I'm really not okay with the DM overriding things just because they don't like how the rules stand. Unless they're being transparent about it.

I would like to take this opportunity to express my amusement at your choice of Monopoly to make your point, since Monopoly is very often (and in many cases, massively game changingly so) house ruled. For example, if you don't auction off open property when the person who lands on said property declines to purchase, you're playing with house rules. If you put money on the free parking space, you're playing with house rules. If you play with a limit on property purchasing before completing X turns around the board, you're playing with house rules. If you allow the purchases of houses before owning all properties of a color, or allow hotel purchases before owning 4 houses on all your properties of that color, you're playing by house rules. I've seen all these and more, and in many cases the players are absolutely convinced they're playing "by the book" ... until you actually break out the book :smallbiggrin:.


Well, the ultimate expression of DM Fiat is freeform, in which there are no rules whatsoever. All fiat(be it mutually agreed upon by the participants or ajudicated by a DM). This is not a very popular system, and when it is used, mutual agreement seems preferred over adjudication. Instead people would usually rather pay money, sometimes fairly large amounts of it, to get rule systems that handle much of that for them.

This indicates a pretty strong overall preference for less fiat.

I don't think you can safely extrapolate this from the data you have. It's somewhat akin to saying that the ultimate in creative toys is a pile of raw materials and the tools necessary to build whatever you want, and then arguing the fact that people don't generally do that and buy and spend large amounts of money on pre-built toys means that there's an overall preference for rigid play toys (like puzzles) over creative toys (like Lego or playdoh). An aversion to one extreme is not sufficient evidence of a preference away from that extreme. Or to put it another way, just because people spend money and sometimes lots (and lots and lots) of it on puzzles and star wars action figures doesn't mean that Lego isn't the preferred toy of many or most. It doesn't mean that it is either, but we don't have sufficient data just looking at what people spend money on. It's also possible they spend money because they like the artwork, or because it completes a collection, or because it's the "thing to have".



The best systems are the ones where you have to resort to fiat the least. If it's coming up constantly, then clearly that system is not supporting your playstyle well, and you may wish to consider a different system. You pay good money so the system takes care of stuff for you, if it's not doing that...why keep supporting them?

Facts not in evidence. Dungeon World requires many times more DM fiat than GURPS. For the sort of games that DW supports and is designed to run, DW is the superior system to GURPS unless you explicitly want the crunch of GURPS in which case we're back to a value judgment on DM fiat, not an objective truth over it's use as a "crutch".

Tyndmyr
2014-12-30, 01:04 PM
I don't think you can safely extrapolate this from the data you have. It's somewhat akin to saying that the ultimate in creative toys is a pile of raw materials and the tools necessary to build whatever you want, and then arguing the fact that people don't generally do that and buy and spend large amounts of money on pre-built toys means that there's an overall preference for rigid play toys (like puzzles) over creative toys (like Lego or playdoh). An aversion to one extreme is not sufficient evidence of a preference away from that extreme. Or to put it another way, just because people spend money and sometimes lots (and lots and lots) of it on puzzles and star wars action figures doesn't mean that Lego isn't the preferred toy of many or most. It doesn't mean that it is either, but we don't have sufficient data just looking at what people spend money on. It's also possible they spend money because they like the artwork, or because it completes a collection, or because it's the "thing to have".



Facts not in evidence. Dungeon World requires many times more DM fiat than GURPS. For the sort of games that DW supports and is designed to run, DW is the superior system to GURPS unless you explicitly want the crunch of GURPS in which case we're back to a value judgment on DM fiat, not an objective truth over it's use as a "crutch".

Whyever not? The most popular RPGs in existence are D&D and Pathfinder. Neither is particularly close to freeform. In fact, no other RPG with significant sales is very close to freeform. Those RPGs are made, but are not popular. Do you really think people buy RPGs only because they like the artwork? Really?

Did you not see how 4e sales tanked, despite having quite good artwork, and people deserted to Pathfinder en masse, rapidly building that into a massive game? Have you seen how sparse and often poor quality the artwork, etc is on many fine old games?

People care about systems because of the systems themselves, and have extremely strong preferences for systems on this basis. I have seen roughly a million edition rules arguing about which rules are better, and roughly zero about which art was better.

1337 b4k4
2014-12-30, 02:46 PM
Whyever not? The most popular RPGs in existence are D&D and Pathfinder. Neither is particularly close to freeform. In fact, no other RPG with significant sales is very close to freeform. Those RPGs are made, but are not popular. Do you really think people buy RPGs only because they like the artwork? Really?

D&D depending on edition, year and current player base has been at times extremely hack it and free form to extremely rigid. That "D&D" is the post popular RPG does not make sufficient evidence for "what people want". The old saying about asking people what they wanted and they would have told you "A faster horse" comes to mind.



Did you not see how 4e sales tanked, despite having quite good artwork, and people deserted to Pathfinder en masse, rapidly building that into a massive game? Have you seen how sparse and often poor quality the artwork, etc is on many fine old games?

If your assertion that rigid, well defined rules that rely as minimally as possible on DM fiat is "what people want" was true, then by all rights, 4e sales should not have tanked at all, because despite whatever else people might have said about the game, 4e was substantially more well defined, more rigid and less DM fiat prone then 3e and Pathfinder.



People care about systems because of the systems themselves, and have extremely strong preferences for systems on this basis. I have seen roughly a million edition rules arguing about which rules are better, and roughly zero about which art was better.

Which is something akin to looking at a Star Wars forum, noting how many arguments are over whether ewoks or jawas are better and concluding that the movie going public as a whole prefers movies with small impossible to understand aliens. What people argue about, especially on the internet and especially when your sample is self selected for the "hard core" (because let's face it, if you're arguing over what magic elf games rules are the best, you're in the "hard core" segment), is not necessarily representative of the TTRPG population as a whole. Never forget that what you read on line is highly curated and cultivated to the community for the particular place you are online, and not representative of the whole.

Tyndmyr
2014-12-30, 03:04 PM
If your assertion that rigid, well defined rules that rely as minimally as possible on DM fiat is "what people want" was true, then by all rights, 4e sales should not have tanked at all, because despite whatever else people might have said about the game, 4e was substantially more well defined, more rigid and less DM fiat prone then 3e and Pathfinder.

Rigidity/inflexibility is something else entirely.

Rules vary in more than one way. But with regards to this particular property, a trend is overwelmingly clear.


Which is something akin to looking at a Star Wars forum, noting how many arguments are over whether ewoks or jawas are better and concluding that the movie going public as a whole prefers movies with small impossible to understand aliens. What people argue about, especially on the internet and especially when your sample is self selected for the "hard core" (because let's face it, if you're arguing over what magic elf games rules are the best, you're in the "hard core" segment), is not necessarily representative of the TTRPG population as a whole. Never forget that what you read on line is highly curated and cultivated to the community for the particular place you are online, and not representative of the whole.

Er, I own a game store, dude. It's in my sig. I'm not basing my opinions on what people like on random forum posts. I get industry stats reported from WotC, etc, and talk to a fair variety of folks about gaming on a pretty regular basis.

1337 b4k4
2014-12-30, 03:56 PM
Rigidity/inflexibility is something else entirely.

I didn't say inflexible, I said rigid and well defined. As you said, inflexibility is something else. But your conditions were:


Instead people would usually rather pay money, sometimes fairly large amounts of it, to get rule systems that handle much of that for them.

This indicates a pretty strong overall preference for less fiat.

If paying money for rules that handle much and produce little fiat is the "strong overall preference", 4e should have crushed 3e, and realistically, GURPS should be the #1 RPG world wide.



Rules vary in more than one way. But with regards to this particular property, a trend is overwelmingly clear.


Yes, I agree that the trend is clear, just not in the direction you're thinking. The trend from where I'm sitting are for games that hit a middle ground, rather than a strong preference for less fiat. 5e is more fiat friendly (and required) than 4e or 3e. FATE, the OSR, the Story Games movement, games like Dread all of these point to a trend of players preferring a less well defined game that can flow and respond to the players at the table, and that provides a middle ground between defined rules and DM (and player) fiat



Er, I own a game store, dude. It's in my sig. I'm not basing my opinions on what people like on random forum posts. I get industry stats reported from WotC, etc, and talk to a fair variety of folks about gaming on a pretty regular basis.

That's great, and seriously congrats. Doesn't mean you don't have a biased sample. In my town there are 3 game stores within a few miles of each other. One is an old "basement" style store. A place that trades in the "deep cuts" and the "we were into old school before it was old school" parts of the TTRPG world. The second is largely a WotC store. Primary sales are D&D (Current Edition) and MtG. The third caters heavily to minis games and war game groups, but still carries the major TTRPG lines. Each one has dedicated clientèle, and each does good business. Each also has store owners willing (and ready) to talk, discuss and argue the merits or lack thereof of various systems, rules and approaches. Each has a segment of customer base that loves to hang out and have these sorts of discussions. And if you spent your time in each of these stores, you'd come out of each with a completely different idea of "what gamers want".

ImNotTrevor
2014-12-30, 05:04 PM
Aka: STATS principle number 5
Anecdotal evidence is not data. Random samples rule the day.

Also, most people that prefer freeform will just...do freeform. You can't sell freeform roleplay because nobody would buy it. And most of the particularly freeform games are cheap or free anyways. (RISUS, FATE) And a whole lot of those systems are homebrewed anyways. It's hard to sell something that you can easily do for free. Low-rules systems can be made at home by anyone with the time or who cares enough to do it. Hell, even I've been tinkering with a pretty open math-free system.

So they don't sell poorly because they're unpopular or unwanted. But more likely because they're even more niche than D&D is. How many people sit around and go: "i don't like freeform RP because that's too much freedom but I also don't like lots of rules and math because that's not enough. I really wish there was some way I could basically do Freeform with a smattering of rules."

Not very many, I wager.

Another reason is pretty damn simple: Peeps don't want to learn new systems. I wanted to get into Mutants and Masterminds, spent about 2 hours on the SRD and went "screw it."

D&D is the most popular because...it was one of the first, it caught on, and people don't want to branch out. Which is fine.


But like I said before, DM Fiat seems to be the term used here for "When the DM cheats against my favor." None of my players know that I got an instant kill against their barbarian in the first round of combat that session, because I dropped it to a crit. Since I rolled 3 times, I'm sure they think I fudged to get higher. I don't really care.

Good DM Fiat is either the kind that the players know about and makes the game funner, or the kind they never even knew happened.

Also, congrats on owning a game store. I wish I had the money to open one, but we already have one and this is a small town.

Maybe if I end up somewhere with a distinct lack of game stores and happen upon a small fortune, I'll look into opening one.

themaque
2014-12-30, 05:18 PM
It all comes down to Trust. If you have been with the same group of people for 20 years, there will probably be a lot of trust. You understand how someone thinks and reacts to things.

However, I have moved around a LOT and been exposed to many different groups because of it. You don't have that level of trust, things are assumed on both sides, and GM fiat can make people very very unhappy for many of the reasons already listed.

I have found that 3.Pathfinder allowed me a strong rules base so that in any game I'm playing in, I have a good understanding of how things work,what my character can do, and what to expect with limited margin for error.

I have now lived in the same place for about 5 years (A LONG time for me) and have a group of people I trust. I trust that if my GM suddenly changes things up on me, he has a plan and a reason otehr than just "He wants it to".

GM Fiat only works if there is TRUST. Many players have had that trust violated.

NichG
2014-12-30, 05:19 PM
Let me through more anecdotal evidence into this mess.

I haven't bothered to buy RPG materials for the last ten years or so, preferring instead to make my own from scratch or cobbling things together from various systems I already own. So you could say that everything I have run in the last 10 years has been 100% fiat. At the same time, I don't just sit down with players and say 'okay, no rules, just game'.

So ask yourself, under the logic of the current debate, why do I bother writing down rules for my own games?

ImNotTrevor
2014-12-30, 05:27 PM
A base agreed ruleset is necessary if you don't want strictly freeform roleplay. And freeform doesn't exactly lend itself to tabletop play, anyways. (I would also argue that even freeform uses rules, though they are conduct-based rather than mechanical.)

So you make rules because tabletop tends to need at least some rules and some way to make characters of roughly equivalent power and ability.

themaque
2014-12-30, 05:44 PM
One Example of GM Fiat.

If I cast a spell, and the gm says:

"It has no effect"

I might go:

"But wait, this spell is supposed to do X and then Y!"

I like a GM who will say:

"Yes, normally it would behave that way, but in this case it's not. Yes that is weird but you don't know why it's happening."

Instead of :

"Well, it doesn't"

The first give me feedback both out and in character. I know that the GM has a grasp of what I am doing and has reasons for why my plan fell through. I may not know those reasons, but I can find out.

The second response just feels like he didn't want my spell to go off.

Jay R
2014-12-30, 09:46 PM
Excellent example. The difference between the good DM and the poor DM isn't whether or not they use DM fiat (they both do), but whether or not they give good feedback.

Milodiah
2014-12-30, 09:58 PM
Excellent example. The difference between the good DM and the poor DM isn't whether or not they use DM fiat (they both do), but whether or not they give good feedback.

Agreed. Saying "You cast the infallible spell and are shocked to see it fail" still keeps you immersed, and makes you think "Why would that be" in terms of gameplay mechanics, rather than "Nope", which shifts your focus from the game world to the GM as you get suspicious that he just denied you because he can. Or, better yet, give the character a chance to figure out why it didn't work.

Prime example is, of course, Magic Missile. 3.5's, along with almost every other iteration I've seen, "cannot miss". Except for a few specific spells which explicitly trump it. It's a simple Spellcraft or Knowledge (Arcana) check for the PCs to realize "Hey, they probably used one of those spells", but it's all up to how the DM handles it. A good one will lead the player to realize that; a bad one will usually see said player jabbing his finger at "can't miss" on his character sheet and complaining. Sure, some players will look at that tear in the immersion and rip it all down by challenging the DM out-of-character on it, and some will let it slide simply to avoid doing that, but it's almost always the DM that put that first tear in there.


Also, being able to explain what happens without having to stop and think of an in-universe explanation is usually a good sign it's not just DM Fiat. "Shield spell specifically blocks Magic Missile" is a valid argument, but if your DM has to pull it out of his ass then its pretty obvious he's trying to cover the aforementioned ass.

jedipotter
2014-12-31, 12:58 AM
Excellent example. The difference between the good DM and the poor DM isn't whether or not they use DM fiat (they both do), but whether or not they give good feedback.

Sure feedback descriptions are good, but they don't really solve the Suspicious Antagonistic Player Problem. If a player wants to make a big deal out of everything every time their character fails to do anything....they simply will focus all their anger at the DM personally.

Unless you appoint the player as ''Co-DM'' and tell them all the game details, most won't be happy.

Coidzor
2014-12-31, 01:05 AM
See title. I don't really get the treatment of DM Fiat as something bad to do, or at the very best unnecessary. Why, exactly?

Unlike having good rules and good guidelines in the first place, DM Fiat is unreliable at best and varies wildly depending upon the DM, their mood, and how much they're caught by surprise when they have to fiat.

At worst it's both incosistent and subject to retconning at a moment's notice, frustrating play and bringing the game to a grinding halt. If you want to read a horror story along these lines, you'll probably be best served by looking up Trekkin's tale of having to deal with Chief Circle (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?275152-What-am-I-supposed-to-do).

Not in one sitting though. I'm doing a re-read and I had to take a break around page 5 or so and it hadn't even really and truly started at that point. There's also the more condensed blog (http://irolledazero.blogspot.com/) writeups as well.

I'm not really sure what you'r holding this in contrast/opposition to, though, unless you're just asking why people would prefer fairly well codified rules and clear guidelines for how to deal with things not directly covered by the rules without having to homebrew up a rules supplement rather than just have the DM wing it on the spot? :smallconfused:

Milo v3
2014-12-31, 01:22 AM
Sure feedback descriptions are good, but they don't really solve the Suspicious Antagonistic Player Problem. If a player wants to make a big deal out of everything every time their character fails to do anything....they simply will focus all their anger at the DM personally.

Unless you appoint the player as ''Co-DM'' and tell them all the game details, most won't be happy.

At that rate, you should remove them from the game. That isn't a problem with the idea of feedback. That is a player issue.

jedipotter
2014-12-31, 01:41 AM
At that rate, you should remove them from the game. That isn't a problem with the idea of feedback. That is a player issue.

The sad problem is: This is Default for a lot of players.


Most new players, like ten years or less, are used to RPG's being run as a ''we are all equal Co-Players''. That is just the way a lot of games are now a days.

And some players hold onto the style of the ''other games'' with no DM and the collaborative story building and other such things and apply them to every game.

Milo v3
2014-12-31, 02:28 AM
The sad problem is: This is Default for a lot of players.

I simply don't believe this is true. The default in my experience and the GM's and players that I know, is not "wants to make a big deal out of everything every time their character fails to do anything that simply will focus all their anger at the DM personally." I play with new players often, and not a single one has been that antagonistic towards a DM.

jedipotter
2014-12-31, 02:50 AM
I simply don't believe this is true. The default in my experience and the GM's and players that I know, is not "wants to make a big deal out of everything every time their character fails to do anything that simply will focus all their anger at the DM personally." I play with new players often, and not a single one has been that antagonistic towards a DM.

It's true. A lot of gamers have the Co-DM idea that everyone playing the game is an omniscient narrator/reader.

They want to be told all the game effects player to player(with the meaningless DM non-title). So the ''DM'' can't just say ''your spell fizzles out'', the player will demand to know why.

And yes this is separate from the character making a knowledge roll, the player still demands to know all.

NichG
2014-12-31, 03:26 AM
I simply don't believe this is true. The default in my experience and the GM's and players that I know, is not "wants to make a big deal out of everything every time their character fails to do anything that simply will focus all their anger at the DM personally." I play with new players often, and not a single one has been that antagonistic towards a DM.

It's a trait that tends to get amplified by playing with DMs who abuse this kind of thing, so you'll find it less in new players and more often in longer-term players, especially those who have had particularly controlling or abusive DMs in the past.

It's also a trait that gets amplified by how the DM handles fiat, how they interact with their players, etc. For example, a DM who encourages a player-vs-DM attitude will find that players try to call them on things more often, because that attitude implies that there's some fair game in which the DM and players are competing with each-other. Similarly, a DM who is very boldfaced about throwing around fiat, especially if they give bad justifications for it (e.g. 'I didn't want you guys to win that fight' or 'I wanted you guys to get captured'), is going to get questioned and second-guessed by their players more often.

Basically: this comes from player distrust of the DM. That distrust can be because the player is just generally not trustful after previous bad experiences, or it can be because the specific DM they're playing with has given them cause to be distrustful.

You reap what you sow.

jedipotter
2014-12-31, 03:54 AM
You reap what you sow.

Agreed.


I'm the son of a third generation farmer
I've been married 10 years to the farmer's daughter
I'm a Gosh fearing hardworking combine driver
Hogging up the road on my p-p-p-p-plower
Chug-a-lug-a-lugin 5 miles an hour
On my International Harvester.

Knaight
2014-12-31, 05:10 AM
Also, most people that prefer freeform will just...do freeform. You can't sell freeform roleplay because nobody would buy it. And most of the particularly freeform games are cheap or free anyways. (RISUS, FATE) And a whole lot of those systems are homebrewed anyways. It's hard to sell something that you can easily do for free. Low-rules systems can be made at home by anyone with the time or who cares enough to do it. Hell, even I've been tinkering with a pretty open math-free system.

Crunchy systems can also be made at home by anyone with the time or who cares enough to do it. There's just no guarantee that they will be any good, which is the exact same situation for rules light games. Even on the Risus end of the spectrum (which is nowhere near Fate), there are some very clever designs that do things well and a lot of crap, and some of the clever designs are commercial. Once getting more towards the Fate end, there are tons of commercial games. Spirit of the Century, which kicked off Fate 3, was over 400 pages, sold very well for an independent game, etc.

The commercial data is strongly skewed, largely by effects beyond the games. For instance, network effects are a really big deal for RPGs, and D&D benefits hugely from just being the standard everyone knows. If it wasn't already popular and well known, plenty of people who have purchased it wouldn't be interested in it at all (myself included). Older systems in general have time to be better entrenched and benefit from it, with WoD and GURPS standing out, older systems are also routinely heavier and this distorts the data. Then there's the matter of splat books. A fairly rules light system generally needs one book, and while there might be a handful of implementations of it for the generics (Savage Worlds and Fudge both have several books), the library stays small. This makes it easier for people to dabble between a bunch of lighter systems, which is also easier due to there being fewer rules in the first place. It also means that the effects of the die hard fan who buys dozens of splat books aren't felt.

themaque
2014-12-31, 05:46 AM
Sure feedback descriptions are good, but they don't really solve the Suspicious Antagonistic Player Problem. If a player wants to make a big deal out of everything every time their character fails to do anything....they simply will focus all their anger at the DM personally.

Unless you appoint the player as ''Co-DM'' and tell them all the game details, most won't be happy.

It depends on how often this is happening, and how you are replying to it. I know if every time I tried to do something I felt like a brick wall was being thrown in my way, just to keep me on the "right" course, I would be upset at the GM as well.

This is a game where communication is key. You may feel you are giving all the information out that is relevent to his character, but he may feel otherwise. Mistaken assumptions, on both sides of the screen, can lead to in and out of character frustrations.

And sometimes you just have a person you can't reason with. That can happen on either side of the screen.

themaque
2014-12-31, 05:52 AM
It's a trait that tends to get amplified by playing with DMs who abuse this kind of thing, so you'll find it less in new players and more often in longer-term players, especially those who have had particularly controlling or abusive DMs in the past.

It's also a trait that gets amplified by how the DM handles fiat, how they interact with their players, etc. For example, a DM who encourages a player-vs-DM attitude will find that players try to call them on things more often, because that attitude implies that there's some fair game in which the DM and players are competing with each-other. Similarly, a DM who is very boldfaced about throwing around fiat, especially if they give bad justifications for it (e.g. 'I didn't want you guys to win that fight' or 'I wanted you guys to get captured'), is going to get questioned and second-guessed by their players more often.

Basically: this comes from player distrust of the DM. That distrust can be because the player is just generally not trustful after previous bad experiences, or it can be because the specific DM they're playing with has given them cause to be distrustful.

You reap what you sow.

I agree and support everything posted here.

goto124
2014-12-31, 09:21 AM
Most new players, like ten years or less, are used to RPG's being run as a ''we are all equal Co-Players''. That is just the way a lot of games are now a days.

And some players hold onto the style of the ''other games'' with no DM and the collaborative story building and other such things and apply them to every game.


They want to be told all the game effects player to player(with the meaningless DM non-title). So the ''DM'' can't just say ''your spell fizzles out'', the player will demand to know why.

And yes this is separate from the character making a knowledge roll, the player still demands to know all.

I'll... keep in mind when I start my first real game 0-0

Really, I would be upset if I wasn't told why my spell fizzles out, and the DM tries to avoid giving the real explanation aka dodging the question and just says 'you don't know why'.

And I'll be hoping that if it's some plot-related thing the DM doesn't want to give out too early, that it's actually a really good plot and not an excuse to fiat. Not that I myself has the Int/Wis to notice, but that's another problem...

GloatingSwine
2014-12-31, 09:38 AM
"why didn't the spell work" sounds like a question to which the DM's answer is "Roll Spellcraft". If they rolled low you don't have to explain it, because in character they couldn't figure out the answer on the spot, and if they rolled high you have a little while to come up with some bull**** (y'know like "you know that there are certain effects like the Shield spell that will block a Magic Missile spell"). It doesn't tell the player what did happen, because just seeing an unfamiliar effect once doesn't tell them everything about it no matter how high they roll, only gave them some information about what might have happened based on knowledge their character has.

A lot of the "bad" DM fiat appears to come from "player did something unexpected", so figuring out some broad case hax for your big bad to be using in advance lets you answer the questions as to why your big bad is cheating (in line with the PCs ability to figure out the hax) if the players do something that render the hax necessary.

Mr.Moron
2014-12-31, 10:43 AM
So, real example from on of my recent games:

It's D&D 5e. One of the players is a sorcerer with the wild magic trait. Per the book, sometimes they should roll a d20 and on a "1" random crap happens from a table.

While tracking a bad dude, they wind up going through an area sitting top of one of the central nexuses for magic power in the setting. Now they didn't know this, probably nobody in the entire setting does (long lost ancient knowledge and all that).

However that place does interact with the less-than-wholly-stable magic of the type the sorcerer channels. As such every time he cast a spell, I told him that the trigger range had increased by 1. That on his first spell I said he'd trigger on a 1-2, while cast his second 1-3 and so on. He casts a lot of spells so he wound up triggering it on a 5 or 6 at some point when the range got that big. Rolling on the standard wild magic chart in the book, he turned into a potted plant for a short period of time. Which was actually fairly inconvenient at the time.

Clearly that's a fat-wad of GM fiat. The book makes no mention of anything like that or even implies such a mechanic could exist. I modified the rules from the book in way that directly impacted the function of the player's character. Impacted negatively even.

The player and character found it to be interesting, and the truth will likely come out/be relevant at some point in the future. It enhanced the game, the session would have been less engaging If I hadn't changed the rules.

ComaVision
2014-12-31, 11:36 AM
I'll... keep in mind when I start my first real game 0-0

Really, I would be upset if I wasn't told why my spell fizzles out, and the DM tries to avoid giving the real explanation aka dodging the question and just says 'you don't know why'.

And I'll be hoping that if it's some plot-related thing the DM doesn't want to give out too early, that it's actually a really good plot and not an excuse to fiat. Not that I myself has the Int/Wis to notice, but that's another problem...

You might want to get over that. If a person's character doesn't know why something happened, "you don't know why" is exactly my response. Sometimes I pre-draw portions of map to speed up game play, and often my players will meta-game about portions of the map their characters shouldn't know anything about. That's fine, I'm aware it will probably happen when I a pre-draw it. However, it means I try to avoid giving them out of character knowledge where it will effect game play.

If they're particularly curious about why something happened, or what would have happened if they approached an encounter a different way, I'm perfectly fine with answering them (out of game) once it's no longer relevant to what's happening in game. For example, what was in the sarcophagus they weren't brave enough to open but won't be going back to now. As a counter example, I won't tell them how they could have overcome a specific obstacle easier because it's going to be coming up again in the future.

Tyndmyr
2014-12-31, 12:45 PM
The sad problem is: This is Default for a lot of players.


Most new players, like ten years or less, are used to RPG's being run as a ''we are all equal Co-Players''. That is just the way a lot of games are now a days.

And some players hold onto the style of the ''other games'' with no DM and the collaborative story building and other such things and apply them to every game.

It's not necessarily a problem. Different preferences are fine.

And I find that players of all stripes will be much more interested and ok with not knowing something if they trust that it isn't just fiat. If you play with a group for a while, and they learn that there is indeed an explanation behind everything that comes out sooner or later, they treat "this doesn't make sense" as a mystery to be explored, rather than as "the DM is trying to screw me again". IMO, that is a MUCH more fun response. However, that'll only work if there is indeed something to be explored, instead of a DM wall of nope.


If paying money for rules that handle much and produce little fiat is the "strong overall preference", 4e should have crushed 3e, and realistically, GURPS should be the #1 RPG world wide.

Not really. 3.5 had a giant pile of rules. Rules for literally everything. Maybe not always the best rules for everything, but FAR more was covered than under 4e. 4e had a very comprehensive set of rules, for combat, if you are using a grid and minis. Outside of that, 4e actually wasn't nearly so good at handling things within the rules. Plus, the rules for skill checks were...problematic at best. Those who hated 4e did, indeed focus on the rules. Hell, those who liked 4e defended it based on the rules.

Nobody fought over the art.

People don't just like rules. They like "good rules". What, precisely, constitutes good rules is dependent upon what sort of game those folks want to play, and how well the rules support that.


Aka: STATS principle number 5
Anecdotal evidence is not data. Random samples rule the day.

And do you have data that says that people vastly prefer freeform? By all mean, pull that data out.

Because otherwise I'm seeing entirely unsupported claims based on opinions without any data whatsoever.


D&D is the most popular because...it was one of the first, it caught on, and people don't want to branch out. Which is fine.

We ain't all playing AD&D here. Why, Pathfinder clearly surpassed D&D for a bit, but when 5e came out, there was a whiplash back to that brand(though it's certainly not the same system). System matters, and people do care about the rules.


Let me through more anecdotal evidence into this mess.

I haven't bothered to buy RPG materials for the last ten years or so, preferring instead to make my own from scratch or cobbling things together from various systems I already own. So you could say that everything I have run in the last 10 years has been 100% fiat. At the same time, I don't just sit down with players and say 'okay, no rules, just game'.

So ask yourself, under the logic of the current debate, why do I bother writing down rules for my own games?

In that case, you're the system designer. Your system isn't fiat any more than the D&D rules are fiat. Some people do this. Some people have homebrewed classes added on to current systems, or house rules, or whatever. That's all fine, and is not fiat.

Fiat is inherently connected to an idea of arbitrariness. The DM didn't like his precious NPC dying, and thus, bam, the rules are bent so that he lives. The difference is really when the decision is made. With a system, homemade or not, the rules are available for perusal before the game. You do not have the apparent unfairness of changing the rules to screw the player while the game is underway.

It doesn't particularly matter what the rules are, following them isn't really a case of fiat. That's just system preference.

Honest Tiefling
2014-12-31, 12:57 PM
I think when people get told that their abilities do not work it causes a knee-jerk reaction as many a DM, no doubt, has simply stopped letting people have abilities for whatever crazy bad DM reason. But yes, sometimes the plot has mystery, and sometimes, the player's abilities are affected, so trust your DM. They should probably tell you if the character might find that odd, however. Personally, I've had to deal with the issue that my spell didn't work, and the DM refused to tell me if my character (A wizard with high INT and spellcraft) might find this a bit weird or not. So I didn't even know there was a mystery or what.

jedipotter
2014-12-31, 01:42 PM
Really, I would be upset if I wasn't told why my spell fizzles out, and the DM tries to avoid giving the real explanation aka dodging the question and just says 'you don't know why'.

And I'll be hoping that if it's some plot-related thing the DM doesn't want to give out too early, that it's actually a really good plot and not an excuse to fiat. Not that I myself has the Int/Wis to notice, but that's another problem...

Now, why would you be upset? Part of playing the game is ''not knowing everything''. The same way you don't read the plot synopsis before you watch a movie or read a spoiler if you have not seen the episode yet. And unless you dedicate your game play to discovery of that one thing...most of the time a player will never have all the details.


"why didn't the spell work" sounds like a question to which the DM's answer is "Roll Spellcraft".


The problem is the player wanting to know all OOC. They say they will still ''pretend their character does not know'', but they the player must know.



And I find that players of all stripes will be much more interested and ok with not knowing something if they trust that it isn't just fiat. If you play with a group for a while, and they learn that there is indeed an explanation behind everything that comes out sooner or later, they treat "this doesn't make sense" as a mystery to be explored, rather than as "the DM is trying to screw me again". IMO, that is a MUCH more fun response. However, that'll only work if there is indeed something to be explored, instead of a DM wall of nope.


This is just the players making assumptions. A player in my game is never told something OOC, just as they want to know. So a player is free to pick from ''well that is how the game goes'' or ''the DM is screwing me''.

And it's not like everything comes out like a bad movie plot....a lot of unknowns are unknowns at the end of the game. Character casts three spells at monster x. All three spells fail. Player used no in-game way to figure anything out. A little while later another character kills monster x with her sword. Game ends, and the players never know why the three spells did not work.

BRC
2014-12-31, 01:54 PM
So, real example from on of my recent games:

It's D&D 5e. One of the players is a sorcerer with the wild magic trait. Per the book, sometimes they should roll a d20 and on a "1" random crap happens from a table.

While tracking a bad dude, they wind up going through an area sitting top of one of the central nexuses for magic power in the setting. Now they didn't know this, probably nobody in the entire setting does (long lost ancient knowledge and all that).

However that place does interact with the less-than-wholly-stable magic of the type the sorcerer channels. As such every time he cast a spell, I told him that the trigger range had increased by 1. That on his first spell I said he'd trigger on a 1-2, while cast his second 1-3 and so on. He casts a lot of spells so he wound up triggering it on a 5 or 6 at some point when the range got that big. Rolling on the standard wild magic chart in the book, he turned into a potted plant for a short period of time. Which was actually fairly inconvenient at the time.

Clearly that's a fat-wad of GM fiat. The book makes no mention of anything like that or even implies such a mechanic could exist. I modified the rules from the book in way that directly impacted the function of the player's character. Impacted negatively even.

The player and character found it to be interesting, and the truth will likely come out/be relevant at some point in the future. It enhanced the game, the session would have been less engaging If I hadn't changed the rules.

Eh, that's not quite DM Fiat, more like homebrew/houseruling, because he was told about it ahead of time. You created some rules, and the rules interacted with the decisions and the dice.

DM Fiat is more about Exceptions than Rules.
Gameplay is about the interactions between Rules, Stats, Decisions, and Dice.

Houseruling is when the DM changes the Rules.
Homebrew is when the DM changes the Stats.

Fiat is when the DM overrides the interactions.

Personally, I'm a fan of rewarding players when the DM is forced to resort to Fiat. "Yeah, you guys had that NPC dead to rights, but I want him alive. He miraculously escapes, but has to drop his magic items, and a map with all his evil plans on it.". A DM shouldn't need to resort to Fiat, but it should exist as a last resort. This system lets the DM keep things intact without cheating the players out of their hard-won victory.

1337 b4k4
2014-12-31, 02:08 PM
Not really. 3.5 had a giant pile of rules. Rules for literally everything. Maybe not always the best rules for everything, but FAR more was covered than under 4e.
...
People don't just like rules. They like "good rules". What, precisely, constitutes good rules is dependent upon what sort of game those folks want to play, and how well the rules support that.

So then, am I correct in summarizing your overall position as: "TTRPG players strongly prefer good rules (where good is defined as supporting the game they're intending on playing), that are solid and plentiful and leave as little as possible to the whim or arbitration of the DM."

If that's the case, how then do we account for the fact that GURPS is not far and away the most successful and highest grossing RPG of all time (or alternatively, if tastes have changed, why it isn't picking up steam?). GURPS handles a number of possible game types (far more than D&D ever did). It has rules for almost every single possible thing you could imagine (from Space Ships, to Dinosaurs, to Piercing vs Slashing vs Firearm weapons to Swimming, Running, Climbing and Research, from Science to Magic). It has a multitude of splat books to get more detailed. The rules themselves are provably more simulationist and accurate compared to D&D's. It's also a vastly more flexible system as almost all the rules are "self contained" so you can be as detailed in one area and as hand wavy in another as you want. Unlike D&D it has been a largely stable rules set, without the continuous edition warring and style changes (3rd edition in 1988 after two quick earlier editions and then nothing until 4th edition in 2004). It had a "universal" mechanic long before "d20" was even a twinkle in WotC's eyes. In short, if good rules with a minimum of DM fiat are the thing people buy TTRPGs for, then GURPS is far and away the ideal system. And yet, here we are.



And do you have data that says that people vastly prefer freeform? By all mean, pull that data out.


I don't think anyone has claimed that people "vastly prefer freeform". There is more than one option between "freeform" and "d20". For example, D&D 5e, which I'm sure you agree relies on more DM fiat than 3e did but less than a "freeform" game does. If the market preference is, to use your words, "strongly overall" towards less fiat, and this is backed up by WotC's own data which you receive, then the release of 5e seems ill advised at best and suicidal at worst.


System matters, and people do care about the rules.

I would argue, brand, setting and feel matter more than the rules. In fact, I've argued before, I believe the rules only matter for most TTRPG players in as much as they get in the way of the game they want to play. Once the rules are "out of the way", it's all diminishing returns from there. Conveniently, this explains why D&D and not GURPS holds the top spot.



Fiat is inherently connected to an idea of arbitrariness. The DM didn't like his precious NPC dying, and thus, bam, the rules are bent so that he lives. The difference is really when the decision is made. With a system, homemade or not, the rules are available for perusal before the game. You do not have the apparent unfairness of changing the rules to screw the player while the game is underway.

This is false, both in how fiat is argued against (the reliance on "fiat" for skills for example is a knock against D&D 5e) but also in your own statements (that freeform games are the ultimate expression of fiat). Fiat is sometimes arbitrary but there is nothing inherent in it that makes it so. To again pick on one of my favorite examples, Dungeon World is a fiat heavy game, but it's explicitly non arbitrary. All fiat decisions are to flow from the fiction first.



I think when people get told that their abilities do not work it causes a knee-jerk reaction as many a DM, no doubt, has simply stopped letting people have abilities for whatever crazy bad DM reason. But yes, sometimes the plot has mystery, and sometimes, the player's abilities are affected, so trust your DM.

I would say not just sometimes, but almost always. Yes, young DMs going through the "I'm an author" phase will abuse their powers to preserve their favorite NPCs and they should be called out on that. But the vast majority of the time your DM wants to have fun just as much as you do and is trying to preserve the fun of the game. Trust your DM and if something is becoming unfun, discuss it with your DM. But knee-jerking to an assumption that your DM is trying to screw you over is an unhealthy and hostile reaction to what is usually an innocent mistake or minor problem.

Jay R
2014-12-31, 02:24 PM
Sure feedback descriptions are good, but they don't really solve the Suspicious Antagonistic Player Problem. If a player wants to make a big deal out of everything every time their character fails to do anything....they simply will focus all their anger at the DM personally.

Oh, I solve that problem by playing with my friends. They trust me; I trust them.


Unless you appoint the player as ''Co-DM'' and tell them all the game details, most won't be happy.

Oh, you can make people happy by letting them know in advance that the rules aren't set in stone, and making making that positive for them as well. The introduction to my current game included the following description of monsters:

DO NOT assume that you know anything about any fantasy creatures. I will re-write many monsters and races, introduce some not in D&D, and eliminate some. The purpose is to make the world strange and mysterious. It will allow (require) PCs to learn, by trial and error, what works. Most of these changes I will not tell you in advance. Here are a couple, just to give you some idea what I mean.
1. Dragons are not color-coded for the benefit of the PCs.
2. Of elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, kobolds, goblins, and orcs, at least one does not exist, at least one is slightly different from the books, and at least one is wildly different.
3. Several monsters have different alignments from the books.
4. The name of an Undead will not tell you what will or won’t hurt it.
5. The first time you see a member of a humanoid race, I will describe it as a “vaguely man-shaped creature.” This could be a kobold, an elf, or an Umber Hulk until you learn what they are.

But it also included the following exceptions about creating PCs:

I have a basic idea for PCs, but I urge people to ask for exceptions. Some exceptions I won’t grant because they don’t fit the world, others because they would make a character too powerful. But I am quite comfortable with the idea that every character is an exception to the basic idea.

You will begin as first level characters with very little knowledge of the outside world. Your character is just barely adult – 14 years old. You all know each other well, having grown up in the same tiny village. Everyone in this village grows their own food, and it’s rare to see anybody from outside the village, or anything not made in the village. There is a smith, a village priest, but very few other specialists.

You do not know anything that cannot be learned in a backward, isolated village. (And yes, that’s why you’ve grown up semi-isolated.)

Your character is way behind the average starting D&D character in knowledge of the world. I am making up for that by giving each PC one 3E Feat (see below), and one unusual starting item you would normally not have at the start of a game. This item must be justified by the character, and must be acceptable to me. For instance, a Wizard could start the game with a familiar. A Bard could have a well-made harp. Somebody with Animal Training could have a trained dog already (but not a horse or bird of prey.) A fighter might have a boomerang as one weapon. Come up with something fun, useful, and unusual, but not outrageous. It won’t be a magic item, but it could be something rare. [It is not armor. Your village can produce leather, studded leather, brigandine, or scale armor, but not chain or plate.]

Reasonable exceptions to these rules are allowed, within certain bounds. I won’t necessarily explain the bounds to you. (If I plan to have you carried off by Vikings, I won’t tell you why your character can’t speak Old Norse, for instance.) Ask for exceptions. Your character should be an exception to the general rules in some way, and I’m prepared to modify PC rules to let you play something unique. I want you to have a character you will enjoy, but who won’t mess up my plans or overshadow the other characters.

You may choose any 2E class. If you want a class from another version, let me know, and we’ll try to work it out. (You can’t be a barbarian, because you grew up in a village. But if you wish to be a sorcerer, I will create a 2E-compliant sorcerer class.) If you want something that’s consistent with medieval fantasy but isn’t a standard D&D class, let’s talk. I want you to play the unusual (human) character that you’ve never been able to play before.

Spellcasters will start with only four spells, of which you will choose two and I will choose two. The two I choose for wizards will be Read Magic and Detect Magic. The two for Clerics will be Cure Light Wounds and Detect Evil. Initial spells must come from the Players Handbook. Unusual spells from other sources may be available later, but you didn’t learn them in your village. Necromantic spells are also not allowed at the start of the game.

A Priest or Druid can choose to be a standard Priest or Druid, or you can ask for specific differences based on your god. I will be quite lenient here, as long as it makes sense. If you do this, however, I reserve the right to make some other specific strictures which you might or might not know about at the start.

None of you know anything about what happens to high-level characters. For instance, Druids may ignore everything in the PHB about the Druid Organization. There just aren’t that many high-level people in the world. We will use most of what the rulebooks say about followers and strongholds, but some of it will be modified. For one thing, not all creatures on the Ranger follower chart even exist. The thief follower table is also inconsistent with the world. Player desires will be encouraged. When we get to that point, be prepared to negotiate for something you would prefer.

Nobody was unhappy at any surprises.

Mr.Moron
2014-12-31, 02:46 PM
Eh, that's not quite DM Fiat, more like homebrew/houseruling, because he was told about it ahead of time. You created some rules, and the rules interacted with the decisions and the d.

What? No he wasn't. He cast the first spell, I said wild magic is gonna happen on a 1-2 this time. He cast the second, 1-3. At no point was information about the upcoming roll made available until after the action (casting a spell), that necessitated the roll had already been made.

I suppose the pattern is rather easy to recognize and it'd be reasonable for anyone to assume if it's increased by +1 the last two times I did this, it's probably going to increase the next time. However it's not like I ever announced that. At no point was the player ever given firm information on what was going on or how the decision was being made.





DM Fiat is more about Exceptions than Rules.
Gameplay is about the interactions between Rules, Stats, Decisions, and Dice.

Houseruling is when the DM changes the Rules.
Homebrew is when the DM changes the Stats.

Fiat is when the DM overrides the interactions.

Personally, I'm a fan of rewarding players when the DM is forced to resort to Fiat. "Yeah, you guys had that NPC dead to rights, but I want him alive. He miraculously escapes, but has to drop his magic items, and a map with all his evil plans on it.". A DM shouldn't need to resort to Fiat, but it should exist as a last resort. This system lets the DM keep things intact without cheating the players out of their hard-won victory.

You're using really odd definitions here. "GM Fiat" in mind simply means something that happens strictly on the authority or decree of the GM with no basis in the underlying system. The example I gave is clearly that: "You cast a spell, your ability that usually triggers on a 1 now triggers on 5", was strictly a matter of making an authoritative decree as GM. What I asked of him had no basis in the books, nor any basis in information the player or the character could have had access to beforehand.


"GM Fiat" as you've described it is just baseless retconning and handwaving. Which is certainly a kind authoritative decree I guess.

BRC
2014-12-31, 03:00 PM
What? No he wasn't he. He cast the first spell, I said wild magic is gonna happen on a 1-2 this time. He cast the second, 1-3. At not point was information about the upcoming roll made until after the action (casting a spell), that necessitated the roll had already been made.

I suppose the pattern is rather easy to recognize and it'd be reasonable for anyone to assume if it's increased by +1 the last two times I did this, it's probably going to increase the next time. However it's not like I ever announced that. At no point was the player ever given firm information on what was going on or how the decision was being made.



You're using really odd definitions here. "GM Fiat" in mind simply means something that happens strictly on the by authority or decree of the GM with no basis in the underlying system. The example I gave is clearly that: "You cast a spell, your ability that usually triggers on a 1 now triggers on 5", was strictly a matter of making an authoritative decree as GM. What I asked of him had no basis in the books, nor any basis in information the player or the character could have had access to beforehand.


"GM Fiat" as you've described it is just baseless retconning and handwaving. Which is certainly a kind authoritative decree I guess.

Hrmmm, that's kind of a grey area.

It's a new rule for this specific area, but in-character they had no reason to know it. Kind of like a hidden trap.

I might have given them a chance (Maybe the sorcerer gets some sort of check to realize their magic seems especially unstable here), but in a way you did. By the time it became a serious risk (After 3 or four castings) they should have had enough data to determine the pattern. They gambled and lost.

As for my definition of DM Fiat, I consider DnD, and all RPG systems, to be fluid. The books can't contain a rule for every situation, nor should they. The Book does not contain strict rules for, say, fighting a bunch of flying cyborg hydras on top of a goblin airship whose hydrogen balloons have been punctured, thus risking an explosion everytime a gun is fired or fire magic is used, with further damage to the ship causing its descent to become more erratic. Nowhere do the rules say that depending on how many engines were intact at the end of the fight, the PCs could end up with the ship intact, but needing repair, irreparable but with their supplies intact, having lost most of their supplies, or being forced to bail out mid-air, with all their supplies lost in a firey explosion.

But that didn't stop me from putting my PCs in that exact situation, and it was awesome.

And I believe that is distinct from having a PC attacking the Dark Prince of the Bloodlands, beat his AC, but I say "No, you miss", because I want tDPotB to beat up the party and take them prisoner without getting so much as a scratch.

Grouping every deviation from the published rules under "DM Fiat" makes discussions frustrating.

jedipotter
2014-12-31, 03:10 PM
Oh, I solve that problem by playing with my friends. They trust me; I trust them.
Oh, you can make people happy by letting them know in advance that the rules aren't set in stone, and making making that positive for them as well. The introduction to my current game included the following description of monsters:

I trust no one....the truth is out there.


I'm very open in my game about ''nothing is exactly 100% what it says on page 42'' and/or ''what page 42 says is not the whole story''.

And I always do the ''your characters know less then nothing'' as I really hate the idea that characters ''know everything''. I often make knowledge checks useless, though even by the book they are useless(except for free crunch). And right at the top of my houserules for knowledge is says ''knowledge is what your character knows, it is not 100% true and absolute fact''.

Tyndmyr
2014-12-31, 03:11 PM
This is just the players making assumptions. A player in my game is never told something OOC, just as they want to know. So a player is free to pick from ''well that is how the game goes'' or ''the DM is screwing me''.

And it's not like everything comes out like a bad movie plot....a lot of unknowns are unknowns at the end of the game. Character casts three spells at monster x. All three spells fail. Player used no in-game way to figure anything out. A little while later another character kills monster x with her sword. Game ends, and the players never know why the three spells did not work.

This is gonna go back to that player's history. Have they recently had a lot of experience with a DM messing with them? If so, they might be more paranoid. They might guess wrong. But, if they play with you for a while, get to know you, and you never screw with them, and they get to see an actual payoff to mystery, they'll probably enjoy it more.

Nothing says they have to investigate and discover everything...but what's the benefit to a mystery without the exploring of it? People are curious. Now, you can describe out of game what happened, if you like, but in game pursual of figuring out what happened is a fine thing. Plot almost always involves trying to figure out some part you don't know yet. It'd be unusual for PCs to know EVERYTHING at the start of an adventure, right? Discovery and learning is part of roleplaying.

If it's something that will never come up and matter in character, there's no reason to withhold knowledge OOC, really. I'll cheerfully describe mechanics in brief after a session if a player is curious about something that isn't plot relevant. That's how they learn more about the system.


So then, am I correct in summarizing your overall position as: "TTRPG players strongly prefer good rules (where good is defined as supporting the game they're intending on playing), that are solid and plentiful and leave as little as possible to the whim or arbitration of the DM."

If that's the case, how then do we account for the fact that GURPS is not far and away the most successful and highest grossing RPG of all time (or alternatively, if tastes have changed, why it isn't picking up steam?). GURPS handles a number of possible game types (far more than D&D ever did). It has rules for almost every single possible thing you could imagine (from Space Ships, to Dinosaurs, to Piercing vs Slashing vs Firearm weapons to Swimming, Running, Climbing and Research, from Science to Magic). It has a multitude of splat books to get more detailed. The rules themselves are provably more simulationist and accurate compared to D&D's. It's also a vastly more flexible system as almost all the rules are "self contained" so you can be as detailed in one area and as hand wavy in another as you want. Unlike D&D it has been a largely stable rules set, without the continuous edition warring and style changes (3rd edition in 1988 after two quick earlier editions and then nothing until 4th edition in 2004). It had a "universal" mechanic long before "d20" was even a twinkle in WotC's eyes. In short, if good rules with a minimum of DM fiat are the thing people buy TTRPGs for, then GURPS is far and away the ideal system. And yet, here we are.

Correct. As for GURPS, my position on that is that it, like much from Steve Jackson Games, is crap and it's rules are bad. This is obviously subjective, but I've known more than a few people who learned how to play GURPS, and then opted to play other things instead. So, I suspect my tastes are not alone in this, even if other people differ, and if many people are much less emphatic about it.

As for "simulationist and accurate"...uh, that is not what necessarily makes good rules. A *lot* of people do not really want to simulate reality, but want something else from their games. Wish fullfillment, fantasy, escapism, good story, etc...it's a long list. And of course, not everyone has exactly the same desires. However, I do think it's telling that fantasy universes seem to occupy the most popular slots for not only RPGs but also MMOs. Sci fi is less popular, and modernish/realistic, even less. So, I do not think that accurately simulating reality is the most important thing for most folks.


I don't think anyone has claimed that people "vastly prefer freeform". There is more than one option between "freeform" and "d20". For example, D&D 5e, which I'm sure you agree relies on more DM fiat than 3e did but less than a "freeform" game does. If the market preference is, to use your words, "strongly overall" towards less fiat, and this is backed up by WotC's own data which you receive, then the release of 5e seems ill advised at best and suicidal at worst.

There is a wild range in between, indeed. There are all manner of games that are dramatically more rules light than D&D. This provides you with something to actually compare market-wise, as free form isn't something you buy.

I would not agree that 5e relies more on fiat than 3.5, however. Monsters still have statblocks, skills are still there, combat rules are pretty explicit. Yeah, they've killed a lot of needless complexity, but...that's not the same thing at all. You can make rules better or worse in a number of ways without impacting reliance on fiat. Just because selecting skills in 5e requires less math doesn't mean the rules cover less. They simply do so in a way that is easier to use/learn.


I would argue, brand, setting and feel matter more than the rules. In fact, I've argued before, I believe the rules only matter for most TTRPG players in as much as they get in the way of the game they want to play. Once the rules are "out of the way", it's all diminishing returns from there. Conveniently, this explains why D&D and not GURPS holds the top spot.

Gurps players will relentlessly tell you that you can use GURPS to play in any setting with the feel you like. This is even probably mostly true. But, we don't. Why? Because if you're gonna play fantasy heros in faerun, it's just gonna be way easier to use D&D. Even if you know both systems.


This is false, both in how fiat is argued against (the reliance on "fiat" for skills for example is a knock against D&D 5e) but also in your own statements (that freeform games are the ultimate expression of fiat). Fiat is sometimes arbitrary but there is nothing inherent in it that makes it so. To again pick on one of my favorite examples, Dungeon World is a fiat heavy game, but it's explicitly non arbitrary. All fiat decisions are to flow from the fiction first.

Published things for 5e list explicit checks with DCs. Not sure where the fiat comes in.

Freeform IS arbitrary. That's what it is. There's literally no "you can only do this".

And arbitrary stuff tends to annoy PCs. Especially if they feel it's arbitrarily punishing them. It's one thing to know "I can't do x" at the outset of the game, and it's quite another to build a char to do x, and x suddenly stops working without reason because the DM said so mid game. The latter approach is FAR more arbitrary, and is described as fiat.


What? No he wasn't. He cast the first spell, I said wild magic is gonna happen on a 1-2 this time. He cast the second, 1-3. At no point was information about the upcoming roll made available until after the action (casting a spell), that necessitated the roll had already been made.

I suppose the pattern is rather easy to recognize and it'd be reasonable for anyone to assume if it's increased by +1 the last two times I did this, it's probably going to increase the next time. However it's not like I ever announced that. At no point was the player ever given firm information on what was going on or how the decision was being made.

The pattern does reduce the arbitrariness. It also is more interesting than sudden changes like suddenly telling a player no without reason. And, you DID have something there, that they could explore, test, all that jazz, so it isn't really a case of a DM screwing with a player without reason, but of something the chars were unaware of. A hidden monster isn't a case of fiat, is it?

I'll grant that it's a grey area in terms of rules being known, but given the nature of wild mage, it isn't a huge stretch. Wild magic is pretty solidly embraced by the rules in a number of editions. This is staying fairly close to those rules.

1337 b4k4
2014-12-31, 03:58 PM
Grouping every deviation from the published rules under "DM Fiat" makes discussions frustrating.

But arguably it makes the discussion more precise. The fact is for the player, there is no substantial difference between "This kobold has AC 100000 because magic armor" and "You miss, because I want this kobold to be a recurring enemy and you hitting would kill it". They're both deviation from the published rules and they both serve to effectively make the kobold in question invulnerable to harm. The only reason in these discussions that the first (and more reasonable lesser examples) is considered "less fiat" is because it has some connection back to the rules and the world rather than a completely arbitrary appearance. By discussing all forms of DM Fiat as exactly what they are, which is DM deviation from the published rules, we can then have a productive discussion in both what forms of Fiat are good and bad, but also how Fiat is not inherently a bad thing and how it can (and should) be used by a DM. Without this precision, we run the risk of dividing all deviations from the rules into "house rules" and "fiat" and discussions devolve into "well that's fiat and that makes it bad" vs "that's house rules so that's ok"



Correct. As for GURPS, my position on that is that it, like much from Steve Jackson Games, is crap and it's rules are bad. This is obviously subjective, but I've known more than a few people who learned how to play GURPS, and then opted to play other things instead. So, I suspect my tastes are not alone in this, even if other people differ, and if many people are much less emphatic about it.

Again though, I feel like you're drawing a conclusion you don't have enough evidence for. The switch away from GURPS could have to do with any number of issues not directly related to how "crappy" the rules are. And as you note that's subjective which makes this even more difficult. It's also why I tend to lean towards the "rules are only important in as much as they support your story and then get out of the way" camp. While I do often encounter arguments over rules, it seems to me the rules often take a back seat to other considerations, that is, players will put up with rules that are flawed, broken or incomplete so long as those rules better fit the style and game they're looking to play, even if that means relying more on DM fiat and less on the rules.


So, I do not think that accurately simulating reality is the most important thing for most folks.

I agree, and yet, one of the biggest ongoing complaints about D&D (and especially the skills system) is how terrible it is at simulating reality (or more accurately, what players believe to be reality). Which again, I think given D&D's ongoing popularity despite this flaw, gives credence to the rules and quality not mattering quite as much as brand, familiarity and "good enough".


I would not agree that 5e relies more on fiat than 3.5, however. Monsters still have statblocks, skills are still there, combat rules are pretty explicit. Yeah, they've killed a lot of needless complexity, but...that's not the same thing at all. You can make rules better or worse in a number of ways without impacting reliance on fiat. Just because selecting skills in 5e requires less math doesn't mean the rules cover less. They simply do so in a way that is easier to use/learn.

Just take a look through Mike Mearl's twitter feed (https://twitter.com/search?q=DM%20from%3Amikemearls&src=typd) at the number of responses to questions where the answer is "it's up to the DM" or some variation on that.



Gurps players will relentlessly tell you that you can use GURPS to play in any setting with the feel you like. This is even probably mostly true. But, we don't. Why? Because if you're gonna play fantasy heros in faerun, it's just gonna be way easier to use D&D. Even if you know both systems.

Again, which seems to support my assertion that the preference isn't towards more complete rules that minimize DM fiat. The preference is informed by other "more important" issues (like familiarity, speed, brand, etc).



Freeform IS arbitrary. That's what it is. There's literally no "you can only do this".


Freeform can be arbitrary, but it is not by definition arbitrary. Arbitrary is defined as "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system." A freeform system can still be played by way of reason and systems. As soon as you begin to layout the structure of your game and the conventions you will play by, every action taken according to those conventions and structures are no longer arbitrary. It's a subtle distinction but it's an important one. Arbitrary implies randomness and unpredictability. Freeform does not.

SpamandEggs
2014-12-31, 05:58 PM
As a GM, I prefer to start rules-heavy, fiat light with new groups because it keeps me transparent and accountable. Resentment can build fast when players suspect I might be fudging rules or making calls to protect my precious NPCs or stories, so I like to lay my cards on the table at the start and play by a common set of rules. After a while with the same group, I don't think easing up a little is a bad thing at all, especially when you know what kind of game each player likes.

Arbane
2014-12-31, 07:50 PM
People don't just like rules. They like "good rules". What, precisely, constitutes good rules is dependent upon what sort of game those folks want to play, and how well the rules support that.

And do you have data that says that people vastly prefer freeform? By all mean, pull that data out.
Because otherwise I'm seeing entirely unsupported claims based on opinions without any data whatsoever.


Yep on good rules.

I have NO DATA WHATSOEVER, but I do have the observation that 'roleplaying' on web-forums with or without random numbers seems to be immensely popular - possibly as popular as sitting around a table rolling dice and moving minis.

themaque
2014-12-31, 10:14 PM
And I always do the ''your characters know less then nothing'' as I really hate the idea that characters ''know everything''. I often make knowledge checks useless, though even by the book they are useless(except for free crunch). And right at the top of my houserules for knowledge is says ''knowledge is what your character knows, it is not 100% true and absolute fact''.

So, you don't tell them anything, and what little they may know, even in character with skills, is very often useless or outright lies.

What happens when someone plays a sage or scholar? Do you give them at least a little more credibility or are they all on the same plane? I can see why some people would be upset.

PairO'Dice Lost
2014-12-31, 10:16 PM
Speaking as a fan of comprehensive rules-heavy systems like GURPS, while it's certainly the best game when it comes to researching the source material and giving game-running advice for certain settings, the reason that it isn't really the #1 system for people who like such systems comes down to a few factors:

The "universal" mechanics really aren't. Every set of mechanics has its own feel, and just as trying to port D&D to "D&D in space" or "D&D in modern times" or whatever has the same zero-to-hero, high-power feel, every GURPS setting feels like a GURPS setting, which is to say a high-lethality, high-granularity setting with characters with very focused competencies. If you like the GURPS feel, you'll like it in any setting, but if you don't like it then trying to do D&D in GURPS or Shadowrun in GURPS or HERO in GURPS just won't work for you.
Point costs are all over the place, because some powers cost a lot because they're powerful mechanically and some cost a lot because they're rare/difficult/powerful in-setting. Having a long lifespan is a minor flavor point that elves in most fantasy settings get for free, but it costs a lot in GURPS even in games where a character won't age a day over the course of the campaign. Chucking a fireball costs a certain amount of points regardless of how powerful or common explosives are in the setting.
It's hard to build characters that are more broad than deep, like D&D bards or jack-of-all-trade action heroes. Flavor stuff like "can play chess pretty well" comes out of the same point pool a Navy SEAL uses to buy "shoot bad guys" and "don't get shot by bad guys" stuff, so some character concepts can end up with a ridiculously huge point cost relative to their actual power level, and conversely other concepts are undercosted because their main schtick is fairly cheap and they can spread the rest of their points around.
These issues combine to make a game whose pick-up-and-play ability is much more limited than other games, as it's harder for players to get conversant with the system and harder for GMs to balance things without more experience than is needed for other point-based games with a standard setting and established benchmarks. Not to mention that it's really more a game-system-building kit than a single game system, so it requires a lot more GM input and time investment up front.

So when a group decides what rules-heavy game to play, it can often make more sense to use Shadowrun for cyberpunk, D&D for fantasy, HERO for superheroes, and so forth than to pick up GURPS and use it for all of them.

Mr.Moron
2014-12-31, 10:53 PM
A hidden monster isn't a case of fiat, is it?


It is if the rules don't provide for monsters hiding, or call out that monsters hide in specific way "Robo-Rabbits hide in grass" and you make them hide in some other way. A Robo-Rabbit hiding in a cave is strictly GM Fiat in either of those cases.

goto124
2015-01-01, 03:00 AM
Really, I would be upset if I wasn't told why my spell fizzles out, and the DM tries to avoid giving the real explanation aka dodging the question and just says 'you don't know why'.

Now that I think about it, the DM doesn't need any reason beyond 'I believe it enhances gameplay'. He had the spell fizzle out in that particular situation because to him, it gives an interesting challenge at that point in time. I can continue playing with that bit of fiat, and eventually decide if it actually makes the game more fun. If it does, high-five to the DM. If it doesn't, talk to the DM about why it wasn't fun for you.

Darth Ultron
2015-01-01, 10:55 AM
What happens when someone plays a sage or scholar? Do you give them at least a little more credibility or are they all on the same plane? I can see why some people would be upset.

Yea, but why would anyone play a sage or scholar? You can't really ''role play'' knowing things, it will just come down to the DM tells you everything your character knows.

But worst of all, knowledge, is boring. It's no fun to figure out the plot on page one. It makes playing the game pointless.

themaque
2015-01-01, 11:16 AM
Yea, but why would anyone play a sage or scholar? You can't really ''role play'' knowing things, it will just come down to the DM tells you everything your character knows.

But worst of all, knowledge, is boring. It's no fun to figure out the plot on page one. It makes playing the game pointless.

I'm playing one in my D&D 5E Eberron game right now. I am a wizard and professor at the university on extended leave to provide field research for one of the ruling families.

I expound at length on everything from architecture to the mating habits of flies. The GM gives me some leeway in using player knowledge for non-combat or plot related things. So it's natural for me to be spouting off stats and statistics for things when I DO make my knowledge rolls.

the other characters have become remarkably generous with their taphy, tophy, and peanut butter.

Coidzor
2015-01-01, 01:31 PM
"why didn't the spell work" sounds like a question to which the DM's answer is "Roll Spellcraft". If they rolled low you don't have to explain it, because in character they couldn't figure out the answer on the spot, and if they rolled high you have a little while to come up with some bull**** (y'know like "you know that there are certain effects like the Shield spell that will block a Magic Missile spell"). It doesn't tell the player what did happen, because just seeing an unfamiliar effect once doesn't tell them everything about it no matter how high they roll, only gave them some information about what might have happened based on knowledge their character has.

Ahh, but the kind of person who is big on DM Fiat and saying "Your Spell Fizzles, DO NOT QUESTION THE GREAT AND POWERFUL OZDM" is also going to be the kind of person who hates Spellcraft, Martial Lore(coming and going because they almost certainly hate Tome of Battle and other supplements), Gather Information, Survival, every single Knowledge skill, and any other tool for the players to investigate or learn more about the world that isn't narration delivered by the Circle Chef automagically. The players having any kind of ability to understand the world around them any better than exactly how the Chief Circle wants them to understand it already is anathema and heresy. :smalltongue:

Knaight
2015-01-01, 02:47 PM
Yea, but why would anyone play a sage or scholar? You can't really ''role play'' knowing things, it will just come down to the DM tells you everything your character knows.

But worst of all, knowledge, is boring. It's no fun to figure out the plot on page one. It makes playing the game pointless.

There's more to a lot of games than just knowing what is going on; scholars aren't going to know everything anyways; there's also more to scholar characters than just knowing things. As such, they can be a lot of fun to play - they're the person who has the knowledge base to understand things they find that others can't, who know how to research things, who have the right sort of contacts to seek information, so on and so forth. That's still an active role, and then there's all of the more specific character aspects on top of it.

Solaris
2015-01-01, 07:17 PM
I'll... keep in mind when I start my first real game 0-0

Really, I would be upset if I wasn't told why my spell fizzles out, and the DM tries to avoid giving the real explanation aka dodging the question and just says 'you don't know why'.

And I'll be hoping that if it's some plot-related thing the DM doesn't want to give out too early, that it's actually a really good plot and not an excuse to fiat. Not that I myself has the Int/Wis to notice, but that's another problem...

I'd... take JP's advice into consideration, as he's not always wrong (as with the statements you'd quoted), but his isn't a particularly popular playstyle on these forums. I'm not saying I'd run screaming from one of JP's games, but that's only because he'd kick me out long beforehand.
There's a reason the "DM is God" attitude fell out of favor, and D&D was on the decline when "DM is God" outlived the enthusiasm of the first generation of gamers. Revisiting the player-DM relationship is, in my opinion, a big part of the reason D&D's third edition revitalized the game. It was the publisher acknowledging what some of the more progressive DMs had known for a long time - everybody at the table is a player.

It's perfectly okay to not give a player OOC information - but tell him that you're not giving him the OOC information for a reason. "I don't want to spoil the ending" is perfectly acceptable. "Because I said so" is not.


The players having any kind of ability to understand the world around them any better than exactly how the Chief Circle wants them to understand it already is anathema and heresy. :smalltongue:

... I kinda wonder if Chief Circle knows he's become a byword for bad DMing. I hope he does.

For myself, I almost never have to use DM fiat in a situation. Between my skill and my players' skill there's been no "Well, that lucky shot killed the campaign" situations. Coming up with a houserule for something is typically a 5-to-10 minute discussion between myself and the players, less if I already know how I'm going to rule it.
Most of the time I've seen DM fiat come into play, it's been a DMPC swooping in to 'save' us or a similar deus ex machina. That's... fine, sometimes, if a situation gets out of hand and you don't want to kill a PC, but it's not exactly my cuppa.

jaydubs
2015-01-01, 08:15 PM
I'd... take JP's advice into consideration, as he's not always wrong (as with the statements you'd quoted), but his isn't a particularly popular playstyle on these forums. I'm not saying I'd run screaming from one of JP's games, but that's only because he'd kick me out long beforehand.
There's a reason the "DM is God" attitude fell out of favor, and D&D was on the decline when "DM is God" outlived the enthusiasm of the first generation of gamers. Revisiting the player-DM relationship is, in my opinion, a big part of the reason D&D's third edition revitalized the game. It was the publisher acknowledging what some of the more progressive DMs had known for a long time - everybody at the table is a player.

This bears repeating. "DM is God" is not just unpopular on the forums. From my experience, it's unpopular in general. Admittedly my sample size isn't large enough to be conclusive, but in a few dozen campaigns, I've seen it pop up only twice. And both games ended quickly from general player revolt (in 1 we re-organized with a different DM, and everyone has been having fun since).

So regardless of which style you think is better, a bit of advice thrown out into the internet. If you're going to play a fiat heavy, "DM is God" style, be clear and candid about it before the game starts (during recruitment, not 5 minutes before the first session). You'll save yourself a lot of headaches by starting with a group that is looking to play the same type of game as you are.

jedipotter
2015-01-02, 12:45 AM
I'd... take JP's advice into consideration, as he's not always wrong (as with the statements you'd quoted), but his isn't a particularly popular playstyle on these forums. I'm not saying I'd run screaming from one of JP's games,

I'm much more ''give you enough dice to roll yourself out''




There's a reason the "DM is God" attitude fell out of favor, and D&D was on the decline when "DM is God" outlived the enthusiasm of the first generation of gamers. Revisiting the player-DM relationship is, in my opinion, a big part of the reason D&D's third edition revitalized the game. It was the publisher acknowledging what some of the more progressive DMs had known for a long time - everybody at the table is a player.

There are a couple reasons, but mostly people changed. X: kept score during our games and there were winners and losers. Winners get trophies and cake. Y:No score is kept as both teams get the points on a score so the game is always automatically a tie. And everyone gets a ''participation trophy'' and a cupcake.

And 3E did do to the ''everyone is a player type'', mostly just to make more money....as always Wizard targets the young.


This bears repeating. "DM is God" is not just unpopular on the forums. From my experience, it's unpopular in general.

It just gets a ''bad rap'' because it ''sounds bad''. And every other ''God DM'' is a Jerk. But then so is every other ''Player DM'', just read the forums.




So regardless of which style you think is better, a bit of advice thrown out into the internet. If you're going to play a fiat heavy, "DM is God" style, be clear and candid about it before the game starts (during recruitment, not 5 minutes before the first session). You'll save yourself a lot of headaches by starting with a group that is looking to play the same type of game as you are.

Though, ''don't ask, don't tell'' works too.

Solaris
2015-01-02, 01:28 AM
That... that's a pretty good example of why I said you should be taken with a grain of salt, JP.

It's also not a cultural shift that turns away from the 'GM-vs-player' mentality that goes hand-in-hand with the 'GM is God' attitude, unless you can tell me where in the AD&D manuals it said how to win D&D ('cause that DMG advised against it, too). D&D was never a competitive game with winners and losers.

roko10
2015-01-02, 01:37 AM
It just gets a ''bad rap'' because it ''sounds bad''. And every other ''God DM'' is a Jerk. But then so is every other ''Player DM'', just read the forums.


Mostly, the omnipresent railroading are also the ones running overpowered DMPCs. Unless you meant something else with Player DM.

jedipotter
2015-01-02, 03:05 AM
That... that's a pretty good example of why I said you should be taken with a grain of salt, JP.

It's also not a cultural shift that turns away from the 'GM-vs-player' mentality that goes hand-in-hand with the 'GM is God' attitude, unless you can tell me where in the AD&D manuals it said how to win D&D ('cause that DMG advised against it, too). D&D was never a competitive game with winners and losers.

Well I could say X:uses and understands representative analogies and Y: only understands and uses direct things

So I could say X: Understands that no matter what the game is fun, even with a TPK and an unfinished plot
With Y: The game is a collaborative group storytelling ring of good and positive things...oh, and fun too.

And for ''winners'' and ''losers'', my sports example works. Game one: score is kept, one team wins one losses. Game two:Each team has the same score, it's a tie...no one wins or losses. To translate that into D&D, it works like this:

GO: Hit points are rolled randomly. It's normal and ok for a 10th level character to have 20 hit points. There is no plot armor, meta plot or storytelling safeties. A player might roll bad, and have a character suddenly die.

GT:Maximum hit points at every level. Normal is max HP(plus that 18 Con). All characters have plot armor and are part of the storytelling metaplot. Rolls do not matter, the story does. The only character death is story death.

Now both types are a perfectly fine way to run a game....but I like number one.

ImNotTrevor
2015-01-02, 03:52 AM
Well I could say X:uses and understands representative analogies and Y: only understands and uses direct things

So I could say X: Understands that no matter what the game is fun, even with a TPK and an unfinished plot
With Y: The game is a collaborative group storytelling ring of good and positive things...oh, and fun too.

And for ''winners'' and ''losers'', my sports example works. Game one: score is kept, one team wins one losses. Game two:Each team has the same score, it's a tie...no one wins or losses. To translate that into D&D, it works like this:

GO: Hit points are rolled randomly. It's normal and ok for a 10th level character to have 20 hit points. There is no plot armor, meta plot or storytelling safeties. A player might roll bad, and have a character suddenly die.

GT:Maximum hit points at every level. Normal is max HP(plus that 18 Con). All characters have plot armor and are part of the storytelling metaplot. Rolls do not matter, the story does. The only character death is story death.

Now both types are a perfectly fine way to run a game....but I like number one.

False Dichotomy, but not at least you aren't flaunting number one as the BEST EV4R. (Though you Strawman the hell out of option 2 in a very passive aggressive way.)

Those are not the only two ways to run a game of d&d, and recognizing that everyone is a player (kind of, I would prefer "participant") does not doom you to one kind of game.

Example:
Everyone sits down at my table. We're buds, we're gonna play some d&d and eat cheetohs. Hell. Yes.

Players are starting at lvl 3, amd it's going to be pretty intense. So first 3 levels are max HP plus CON mod. Woot. Beyond that, HP is rolled normally and dice fall where they will. They're given a little boost at the start so that nobody is remaking characters at the very start and we don't habe a TPK first session because that's a freakin' buzzkill and a half. After that, though, all bets are off.

An hour into the game, things get tense. Things aren't looking good. The Rogue is almost dead and the Cleric is out of healing spells. The Fighter is entangled and too far away. The BBEG of this adventure is about to go whole hog. With a cry of "get rekt" he brings his mace down and kills the Rogue.

Later on, after the end of the adventure, even the DM pats Rogue player on the back. "That sucks, man. They can try to resurrect him or you can roll up something new. Your call."

A reasonable balance has been struck between making the characters tough enough to survive and feel competent in a harsh environment, and yet the dice may still spell disaster. It's not all one way or all the other.

The DM ISN'T god. Unless you're playing a campaign run by Jesus or something. (And if you are, welcome to the Playgound, Mr. Pope.)

The DM isn't even on a pedastal. He's just got heeled boots on while everyone else is in flats. He's a referee at best, no matter what attitude you choose to have about it. The actual reality doesn't change. The DM is a dude with a book who makes sure the rules are followed and tells a story, etc. That's it. That is the exact essence of the situation in reality. Claiming more than that is...dangerously egotistical and probably indicative of some kind of psychological issue(s).

Arbane
2015-01-02, 04:11 AM
D&D was never a competitive game with winners and losers.

Weeeelllll.... except at actual convention tournaments, but that's very much a special case.


False Dichotomy, but not at least you aren't flaunting number one as the BEST EV4R. (Though you Strawman the hell out of option 2 in a very passive aggressive way.)

I don't think I've EVER seen Jedipotter present a dissenting opinion in a way that WASN'T a ridiculous caricature of it.

ImNotTrevor
2015-01-02, 06:31 AM
I haven't even been here that long, and I have to agree with you, Arbane.

jaydubs
2015-01-02, 11:58 AM
A thought just came to me. There are actually games where lots of DM fiat, hostile DM, and making players compete to see who "wins and loses" is absolutely expected by participants, in which case it becomes perfectly acceptable. Examples include:

Paranoia - where the DM takes the role of an insane artificial intelligence, and part of the game is avoiding the DM's wrath. Shenanigans ensue.
Maid RPG (hilariously featured on Rollplay R&D (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUcGZ2u4Q1c)) - where the DM takes the role of the Master, who the Maids compete to please in order to marry at the end of the game. (It's a satire of certain types of anime.)

So an addendum to my previous claim. Most players nowadays aren't looking for "God DMs" when playing most RPGs. But switch to the right RPG, and you switch to an option where most players are expecting (even looking for) it. And that makes it fine and dandy.

...A lot like if you advertise that kind of DMing style when recruiting. *hint hint*

Tyndmyr
2015-01-02, 02:26 PM
A thought just came to me. There are actually games where lots of DM fiat, hostile DM, and making players compete to see who "wins and loses" is absolutely expected by participants, in which case it becomes perfectly acceptable. Examples include:

Paranoia - where the DM takes the role of an insane artificial intelligence, and part of the game is avoiding the DM's wrath. Shenanigans ensue.
Maid RPG (hilariously featured on Rollplay R&D (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUcGZ2u4Q1c)) - where the DM takes the role of the Master, who the Maids compete to please in order to marry at the end of the game. (It's a satire of certain types of anime.)

So an addendum to my previous claim. Most players nowadays aren't looking for "God DMs" when playing most RPGs. But switch to the right RPG, and you switch to an option where most players are expecting (even looking for) it. And that makes it fine and dandy.

...A lot like if you advertise that kind of DMing style when recruiting. *hint hint*

Paranoia really is a collection of things that you shouldn't do in other games, all lumped together for ridiculousness and humor. It's good BECAUSE of that, in the same way that jokes can often be funny because they flaunt limits, etc of what you should say.

But one wouldn't put "the players can't read the phb" for D&D, because that wouldn't make sense. And of course, trying to inject "realism" into Paranoia or whatever via complex rules is completely unnecessary. Humor vs non humor works differently.

ImNotTrevor
2015-01-02, 11:28 PM
I've been doing some research into the whole "Best selling roleplaying games" thing. and I've been a little bit surprised.

Firstly, by how little good math there is.

Secondly, by how often the top lists include games that utilize DM fiat a lot. For instance, this is a list made by ICV2, which is the industry monitor for sales. They get their numbers from game store owners and various distributors to see what their top selling products were. According to http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/29329.html (their list) the top options for spring of 2014 include Numenera, which I have no personal experience with but from a cursory glance looks light on crunch, and Fate Core, which is also low on crunch. D&D doesn't even show up in the top 5.

Since this is actual hard evidence from an actual industry monitor, I think we can throw the assumption that "all gamers hate fiat" right the hell out the window, since it is clearly not very well substantiated in the current state of the industry. Yes, Pathfinder sits pretty at number 1, but the top 5 is rounded out with at least two low-crunch high-fiat systems.

Unfortunately, I can't find the numbers that are associated with the list.

As of the release of 5th edition, that may change. I haven't been able to find the new figures for Winter 2014, so I think they are currently unpublished. We'll have to wait for their next statement.

Giving the site a cursory overlook, it looks like D&D has actually been below FATE core on the list since Summer 2013.

So yeah. Figures don't lie, statistics rule the day, someone actually bothered to google and cite a source, etc.

tl;dr
According to the people who rate the industry, crunch-light/fiat-heavy systems aren't actually all much behind crunchy systems in terms of sales. They are more popular than D&D right now, at least.

mephnick
2015-01-02, 11:54 PM
According to the people who rate the industry, crunch-light/fiat-heavy systems aren't actually all much behind crunchy systems in terms of sales. They are more popular than D&D right now, at least.

I think the reason those less crunchy games are popular is less "players like fiat" and more "new players don't want to read 400 pages of rules to play a social game".

I have a few gaming groups. One is 3.5 D&D players and we've been together quite awhile. We stick to rules heavy games.
The two new groups I have, which are all players new to RPGs? They don't want to play D&D. They want to play Numenera and Dungeon World, because they can learn the game and make characters in a few minutes, then focus on drinks and friends. I give them a story to follow, they don't care what decisions I make, they just want a good time with friends. No one is flipping tables because I won't let them play a half-dragon giant psion.

Now that nerdy stuff is becoming more mainstream I think there's a lot more "Dungeon World people" than there are "D&D people". Maybe 5e can convince them to come into the D&D community, but if 3.5 was still the standard there'd be no chance.

Also it's one thing to have heavy fiat in a game that markets itself as fiat heavy. It's much different to play a game that boasts freedom and then run into jedipotter.

Frenth Alunril
2015-01-03, 12:49 AM
All seriousness aside. *ah-hackmaster-hem*

ImNotTrevor
2015-01-03, 03:37 AM
I think the reason those less crunchy games are popular is less "players like fiat" and more "new players don't want to read 400 pages of rules to play a social game".

I have a few gaming groups. One is 3.5 D&D players and we've been together quite awhile. We stick to rules heavy games.
The two new groups I have, which are all players new to RPGs? They don't want to play D&D. They want to play Numenera and Dungeon World, because they can learn the game and make characters in a few minutes, then focus on drinks and friends. I give them a story to follow, they don't care what decisions I make, they just want a good time with friends. No one is flipping tables because I won't let them play a half-dragon giant psion.

Now that nerdy stuff is becoming more mainstream I think there's a lot more "Dungeon World people" than there are "D&D people". Maybe 5e can convince them to come into the D&D community, but if 3.5 was still the standard there'd be no chance.

Also it's one thing to have heavy fiat in a game that markets itself as fiat heavy. It's much different to play a game that boasts freedom and then run into jedipotter.

I like that idea, and I think it points to the truest reason why most people play these games. They're social, and they're fun. The implication seemed to be that having lots of fiat is a dealbreaker-which it isn't, apparently. Or better put, "The People hate fiat." Which they apparently don't.

The amount of rules doesn't necessarily have any say in the main two principles of what makes a ttrpg enjoyable:
1. Is it fun?
2. Do you like the people you play with?

I'll play just about anything if I like the people involved. I tried Traveler because I knew the GM was a good guy. I tried d&d for the first time because I knew the players and the DM and had a free weekend.

Very few people are drawn to ttrpg's for mechanics. Much like nobody decides to play Monopoly because they heard it has a really solid ruleset.

So I agree with you in a sense, though maybe from a different angle:

Fiat-heavy or not has little bearing on what the consumers want. They want a fun game to play with buds while they eat cheetohs and get sloshed on weekends. Beyond that it's individual preference.

Similar to how all metal heads like metal...but don't necessarily like the same bands. And then argue about whether or not the drummer determines if a band is popular.

Coidzor
2015-01-03, 04:53 AM
Weeeelllll.... except at actual convention tournaments, but that's very much a special case.

Yeah, but Con Tourneys have as much to do with actual play as what goes down in a porno has to do with the sex that actual people have.

PairO'Dice Lost
2015-01-03, 05:15 AM
Secondly, by how often the top lists include games that utilize DM fiat a lot. For instance, this is a list made by ICV2, which is the industry monitor for sales. They get their numbers from game store owners and various distributors to see what their top selling products were. According to http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/29329.html (their list) the top options for spring of 2014 include Numenera, which I have no personal experience with but from a cursory glance looks light on crunch, and Fate Core, which is also low on crunch. D&D doesn't even show up in the top 5.

Since this is actual hard evidence from an actual industry monitor, I think we can throw the assumption that "all gamers hate fiat" right the hell out the window, since it is clearly not very well substantiated in the current state of the industry. Yes, Pathfinder sits pretty at number 1, but the top 5 is rounded out with at least two low-crunch high-fiat systems.

Looking at the list, Pathfinder is obviously #1 because it's D&D 3.75 + good marketing, and FFG's Star Wars is #2 most likely because it's Star Wars; while it seems lukewarm-to-positive in popularity on the intertubes, I talked to two groups at my FLGS about EotE and all but two of them said "We'd like SWSE or WEG a lot better, but EotE is the only Star Wars game in print, so we're putting up with that."

Shadowrun likely makes #3 because SR 5e just came out, and Fate is the de facto rules-light intro game for people who aren't attached to a specific setting (where Apocalypse World and Dungeon World win out), and Shadowrun and Fate are definitely over on the crunchier side of things--Shadowrun because it's waaay crunchy, Fate because it's probably the heaviest rules-light game out there, if that makes sense. Finally, the only reason anyone seems to have heard of Numenara is that Monte Cook wrote it and there are plenty of people who try anything he wrote (and anything written by ex-D&D devs, for that matter).

So while I'm not saying EotE or Numenara are bad, and I only have anecdata and reading various forums to support my hypothesis, those two seem to be popular due to non-mechanical reasons and would sell out regardless of system because Star Wars and Monte Cook, and I've actually seen people (mostly on Reddit and EnWorld) complain that Fate is too heavy for them and they much prefer Apocalypse/Dungeon World, Risus, and similar. Mephnick's assumption that it's more likely due to lower complexity makes more sense, but even then I haven't seen any new groups (i.e. groups without that one experience gamer who pitches his favorite games) get into Numenara and Dungeon World, I've only seen them go for setting tie-in games like DFRPG (and from there to Fate Core), Mistborn, EotE, and so forth, so who knows what the real cause is.

Honest Tiefling
2015-01-03, 01:10 PM
I would also say that Apocolypse World might suffer from the bizarre inclusion of sex rules. Just try to play that at your game store without seeming like 'That Dude'. And like my players need more encouragement to try to sleep with NPCs.

Friv
2015-01-03, 01:33 PM
I've been doing some research into the whole "Best selling roleplaying games" thing. and I've been a little bit surprised.

Firstly, by how little good math there is.

Yeah, it's a real issue. IIRC, numbers on White Wolf in particular were always very hard to figure, because the company made a policy of never releasing any of its sales figures, and mostly sells books online these days, so they had to pretty much include pure guesswork.


Secondly, by how often the top lists include games that utilize DM fiat a lot. For instance, this is a list made by ICV2, which is the industry monitor for sales. They get their numbers from game store owners and various distributors to see what their top selling products were. According to http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/29329.html (their list) the top options for spring of 2014 include Numenera, which I have no personal experience with but from a cursory glance looks light on crunch, and Fate Core, which is also low on crunch. D&D doesn't even show up in the top 5.

Note that you're looking at Spring 2014 figures, there. D&D isn't showing up because D&D wasn't selling new books at the time - aside from a few novels, which are never top sellers, and re-releasing Baldur's Gate, which is a computer game, they had nothing on offer except older books.

It's also kind of a misnomer to consider Fate Core low on crunch - it's really a medium-high crunch narrative-focused game. It's not as complex as D&D, but that's largely because everyone is drawing from the same pool of powers, instead of having individual power sets for multiple classes; it's still a 300-page book, and 175 of those pages are just explaining rules and various types of conflict resolution. Between tagging, creating or modifying aspects, using stunts, claiming compels, taking stress and consequences, moving through zones, making overcome actions, and taking part in challenges and contests, there is a lot of stuff that needs to be remembered and manipulated.

*EDIT* There is a low-crunch version of Fate, mind you, but that's Fate Accelerated Edition, which clocks in at a spry 50 pages. While you'll see people recommend it a lot, it's not quite the top-seller that Fate Core is despite being substantially less expensive.

Coidzor
2015-01-03, 03:46 PM
I would also say that Apocolypse World might suffer from the bizarre inclusion of sex rules. Just try to play that at your game store without seeming like 'That Dude'. And like my players need more encouragement to try to sleep with NPCs.

I think you and your players may need to sit down and have an honest heart-to-heart about your feelings for one another if that's really a chronic issue.

Knaight
2015-01-03, 04:13 PM
I would also say that Apocolypse World might suffer from the bizarre inclusion of sex rules. Just try to play that at your game store without seeming like 'That Dude'. And like my players need more encouragement to try to sleep with NPCs.

I'd say they fit with that Apocalypse World is going for.

Honest Tiefling
2015-01-03, 04:32 PM
...Having an army that doubles as a harem? Well, I guess so, but its still a problem to DM for and I don't want to do logistics every dang time nor have to juggle the spotlight that much. Also, I'm not doing that near high schoolers. Just doesn't end well. And regardless of my own squeamishness, I could see it being uncomfortable or irrelevant for many groups turning them off of it. It seems like a niche game.

ImNotTrevor
2015-01-03, 06:01 PM
Yeah, it's a real issue. IIRC, numbers on White Wolf in particular were always very hard to figure, because the company made a policy of never releasing any of its sales figures, and mostly sells books online these days, so they had to pretty much include pure guesswork.



Note that you're looking at Spring 2014 figures, there. D&D isn't showing up because D&D wasn't selling new books at the time - aside from a few novels, which are never top sellers, and re-releasing Baldur's Gate, which is a computer game, they had nothing on offer except older books.

It's also kind of a misnomer to consider Fate Core low on crunch - it's really a medium-high crunch narrative-focused game. It's not as complex as D&D, but that's largely because everyone is drawing from the same pool of powers, instead of having individual power sets for multiple classes; it's still a 300-page book, and 175 of those pages are just explaining rules and various types of conflict resolution. Between tagging, creating or modifying aspects, using stunts, claiming compels, taking stress and consequences, moving through zones, making overcome actions, and taking part in challenges and contests, there is a lot of stuff that needs to be remembered and manipulated.

*EDIT* There is a low-crunch version of Fate, mind you, but that's Fate Accelerated Edition, which clocks in at a spry 50 pages. While you'll see people recommend it a lot, it's not quite the top-seller that Fate Core is despite being substantially less expensive.

Either way, Fate includes a lot of fiat from GM and player alike. Aspects, Stunts, Zones, and really most things in the game are pretty much Fiat from both player and GM.

Rules-light or not, a lot of Fiat is thrown around in any given game of FATE. And its popular.

Knaight
2015-01-03, 09:36 PM
...Having an army that doubles as a harem? Well, I guess so, but its still a problem to DM for and I don't want to do logistics every dang time nor have to juggle the spotlight that much. Also, I'm not doing that near high schoolers. Just doesn't end well. And regardless of my own squeamishness, I could see it being uncomfortable or irrelevant for many groups turning them off of it. It seems like a niche game.

It is a niche game. It's also deliberately designed to be a niche game. There are a bunch of very distinct mechanics that were guaranteed to be polarizing, there are a bunch of very distinct setting ideas that are guaranteed to be polarizing, so on and so forth. As for high schoolers, Apocalypse World is also a deliberately dark, grim game. Were it in a medium with ratings, I'd expect to see an NC-17/AO on it, even without the sexual content.


Either way, Fate includes a lot of fiat from GM and player alike. Aspects, Stunts, Zones, and really most things in the game are pretty much Fiat from both player and GM.

Rules-light or not, a lot of Fiat is thrown around in any given game of FATE. And its popular.
It's debatable. Aspects and Stunts rely heavily on player created content, and their usage involves a lot of active decision making - though once Stunts are established, their conditions are usually pretty clear. However, all of that is just application of the rules; I'm not sure any of it would really fit within the context of fiat. Zones also don't really involve any fiat, and mostly just involve drawing boundaries in obvious locations.

Maybe this is just a definitional difference, but the sort of "fiat" in Fate is substantially different than the sort of "DM fiat" that gets complained about. Rules are being applied, not overridden.

Coidzor
2015-01-03, 11:18 PM
Either way, Fate includes a lot of fiat from GM and player alike. Aspects, Stunts, Zones, and really most things in the game are pretty much Fiat from both player and GM.

Rules-light or not, a lot of Fiat is thrown around in any given game of FATE. And its popular.

Well, yeah, but you just said yourself exactly why it's not exactly a perfect example of what the thread's talking about.

It's less "DM Fiat" and something actually, like, mutual or even with collaborative elements.

ImNotTrevor
2015-01-04, 03:33 AM
It is a niche game. It's also deliberately designed to be a niche game. There are a bunch of very distinct mechanics that were guaranteed to be polarizing, there are a bunch of very distinct setting ideas that are guaranteed to be polarizing, so on and so forth. As for high schoolers, Apocalypse World is also a deliberately dark, grim game. Were it in a medium with ratings, I'd expect to see an NC-17/AO on it, even without the sexual content.


It's debatable. Aspects and Stunts rely heavily on player created content, and their usage involves a lot of active decision making - though once Stunts are established, their conditions are usually pretty clear. However, all of that is just application of the rules; I'm not sure any of it would really fit within the context of fiat. Zones also don't really involve any fiat, and mostly just involve drawing boundaries in obvious locations.

Maybe this is just a definitional difference, but the sort of "fiat" in Fate is substantially different than the sort of "DM fiat" that gets complained about. Rules are being applied, not overridden.

So...once the rules are nonspecific enough, it's no longer fiat? Because the rules are pretty much: make it up.

and if the GM has to create opponents by hand, then every stunt and aspect held by every NPC is exactly like what the players create, so I don't actually see a functional difference. Players get to fiat one character each. Maybe two if it's that sort of campaign.

The DM fiats many characters per session, let alone per campaign.

The only difference is that these rules tell you to do so, rather than not mentioning it.

As far as I'm concerned, the only fiat people don't like is the kind that A) works against you unfairly and/or B)makes things less fun. I've never had a player complain because I let them play fast and loose with the rules because I couldn't be assed to flip through a book and waste time. I look it up before the next session and I have the rule in mind should it come up again soon, but nobody has ever complained.

I think part of what happens here is that when you start talking about DM Fiat, people start to get Confirmation Bias, which is a natural thing your brain does. Your brain won't bother to note of a time when fiat occured and it didn't affect you in any way. It's a non-event. When fiat is done that pisses you off, you take note of it because it's an event that actually caused an emotion, and a strong one at that. This isn't something that mocks or belittle anyone, by the way. It's just a human brain thing. We remember the interesting parts of our lives more than we remember each time we brush our teeth in the morning, and every flavor of toothpaste we've ever used.

Just a crackpot theory from me, but I think the majority of people who play ttrpg don't give a damn. We're in a forum where people are so into ttrpg that they scrounge through forums and argue about them. I don't think our forum is in any way an accurate depiction of the average player. (anecdotal evidence, but:) Of all the d&d and other tabletop players I know, which numbers around 15-20, I'm the only one who uses this forum. Or who goes to forums about tabletop at all.

As for the rest of the issue, it really comes down to:
Bad fiat will make people pissed at you.
Good fiat won't be noticed at all. Or might even get you kudos if it's in a casual setting and it ends up being funny.

That's pretty much all one needs to know.

themaque
2015-01-04, 03:36 PM
All seriousness aside. *ah-hackmaster-hem*

I actually really enjoy the latest edition of Hackmaster. What started out as a joke turned into, what I feel, is honestly a great game.

I think Jedipotter might enjoy it as it has a strong rules system for a low magic world.

Raimun
2015-01-04, 09:42 PM
I think it's that the good DM Fiat isn't just a good ruling but also subtle and hard for the players to even notice there was a Fiat.

I won't be completely okay with negative or positive Fiats if it's completely clear that there was a Fiat. That's even if I sometimes just sigh and let it be, knowing I should and could do something but accepting the GM's storytelling. The classic example of this is something I like to call "The GM-Escape", ie. if a bad guy runs out of the battle grid (etc.), there's no way to catch him. This can get sometimes a bit silly and breaks the immersion a bit, especially if the party happens to possess ranged weaponry and/or superior mobility but... what can you do?

Most of the times I'm against GM Fiats because they limit creativity. Some GMs seem like they attempt to paint situations where there is supposed to exist only one possible solution/path/option. Then, when someone tries something different, which would actually work by rules and elementary logic, it's suddenly impossible:

Player: "Okay, monster or no monster, I need to get to the other side of the fence and go through that portal within. The monster shouldn't be able to follow me there because it's bound to this place. One moment, let me calculate if I have enough movement..." *begins to count squares of battle grid*

GM: *rolls some dice* "Okay, as you walk through the door, the monster attacks you on its turn. Does-"

Player: "Whoa-whoa. Who said I'm going through the door. I don't want to get hit. The fence is only 15 feet high and I can fly now, so I stay clear of both the monster and the door and swoop in from the right and enter the portal. See? It's a more direct path if you fly and if I don't do anything else this turn and take the double move the monster is not near enough for even an attack of opportunity."

GM: "Uh, okay. The monster slashes at you along the way. Roll a Reflex-save."

Player: "Um, I'm not even near that monster... and aren't you thinking of an attack of opportunity?"

GM: *rolls a die* "Yeah, does 23 hit?"

Player: *sighs* "No..."

Also, most people don't tend to make the best rulings when they've been given only 10-15 seconds to think about it, without any reference to... well, anything at all. There is a reason it takes time to write a roleplaying game system.

I should also mention that I've argued against rulings that would have been beneficial to the party but that didn't make sense no matter how you look at them.

Knaight
2015-01-04, 11:21 PM
So...once the rules are nonspecific enough, it's no longer fiat? Because the rules are pretty much: make it up.

The rules for creating aspects fit within some very broad advice, stunts are a lot more specific. Both tie into a skill system that is very concrete in how it handles, and when it comes to actually using aspects there are three predefined methods which are picked between. There's no fiat involved there.

jedipotter
2015-01-04, 11:57 PM
Most of the times I'm against GM Fiats because they limit creativity. Some GMs seem like they attempt to paint situations where there is supposed to exist only one possible solution/path/option.

Saying ''limits creativity'' is a bit harsh. A Dm at any second can do anything, even ''within the non-existent game rules'', as that is what the DM does.



Player: "Okay, monster or no monster, I need to get to the other side of the fence and go through that portal within. The monster shouldn't be able to follow me there because it's bound to this place. One moment, let me calculate if I have enough movement..." *begins to count squares of battle grid*

This is a good example of a bad DM. Note:

1. The DM created everything about the encounter
2. The DM controls everything about the encounter
3. The DM can change anything about the encounter

So first off, the DM could have stated ''the portal is closed'' and given the normal way to open it. This stops the ''fly through''. The DM could have the portal need a key. The DM could have the portal tied to the monsters life force: monster dies, portal opens (the sneaky villain uses the wand of feign death to fool the portal). Or other such things to make the encounter harder.

And even if the DM is caught ''off guard'' it's easy to have ''in game back-ups''. For example the whole area around the portal is a no-fly zone with a ''Earthbind spell effect'' that blocks fliers. And should a player complain the DM just needs to point to the DMG where it says ''the DM can do custom effects, things and stuff.''

Giving the monster a sudden and spontaneous ranged ability is also a great thing to do. (Though the good DM would have included this in the creation). And the players never need know the monster did not have the ranged ability back on Monday when the DM made the monster. As long as the DM does not say something like ''out of nowhere a crossbow pops into the monsters hand and it shots the bolt!'' and the DM more just has the monster ''breathe a jet of fire'' or ''fire an arcane bolt of energy'', as both can be explained under ''player interrogation'' by templates or class abilities.

Knaight
2015-01-05, 12:15 AM
Giving the monster a sudden and spontaneous ranged ability is also a great thing to do. (Though the good DM would have included this in the creation). And the players never need know the monster did not have the ranged ability back on Monday when the DM made the monster. As long as the DM does not say something like ''out of nowhere a crossbow pops into the monsters hand and it shots the bolt!'' and the DM more just has the monster ''breathe a jet of fire'' or ''fire an arcane bolt of energy'', as both can be explained under ''player interrogation'' by templates or class abilities.

Alternately, the PC can just get to the portal, because they came up with a workable strategy for the situation presented. Continued advancement will probably be more difficult, as a GM just considering the setting would realize that someone thought guarding a portal with a bound creature that can't actually reach it and has no ranged attacks was a good idea, and that someone is probably either going to learn from their failure or (if they're an underling of some sort) get replaced.

Gnoman
2015-01-05, 12:40 AM
Let's look at a pair of GM-fiats from my last campaign, and how my players reacted. Blue text in this case is scene setting, red is things the player does not know. (from memory, so details might be fuzzy, and this is a VTT game)

#1

The party bard has been raised to the nobility in two of the setting's three main empires, and is a central player in keeping the thrones securely in the hands of responsible rulers that can be counted on in the coming apocalyptic crisis. The party is ambushed in an alley by heavily armed warriors, that ping heavily on detect magic.. This is a party of expertly trained assassins from a near-legendary assassins guild that allegedly never fails and commands astronomical prices per hit that has been hired specifically to eliminate the troublesome bard, and knows practically everything about him.

Bard: I try to convince them to go away. (rolls extremely high on Diplomacy)

Me: He ignores your attempt. He simply asks if you are [bard's name]. Because they were going after an extremely charismatic bard that was known for talking his way out of things, in addition to complete immunity to enchantment spells a spell had been placed on them to make them immune to persuasion by continous reinforcement of their primary order.

Bard: I tell him that I am.

Me: They all attack

Bard: (on his turn) I use [signature spell]. He used the same spell so much they knew he would use it, so had a targeted anti-that-spell-field.

Me: The attack does nothing.

The bard throws a fit, they manage to win the fight, and the game goes on.


#2


The party's cleric is a templated creature that radiates light, and the party has never encountered another one of his kind. The race that the player had chosen did not exist in the campaign world, but when I okayed his character sheet I knew that it would be very appropriate for a plot twist down the line, so he wasn't told this. The party is in an ancient ruin that has been maintained as a semi-religious shrine. I take control of his character suddenly.

Me: [Cleric] gets up and walks down the hall. [Cleric] cries out in a strange language and the wall opens, revealing a dark passage. It (the cleric had been wrapped in heavily concealing garments, so nobody had any idea what it looked like) strides boldy forward.

The party follows.

Me: [Cleric] leads you to a ancient golden door, which opens at a touch. There are a number of weapons on pedestals here, and [cleric] touches each in turn, each time speaking a word in that same strange language. Each of the weapons was forged by a god, and had been carried by great champions in an ancient War In Heaven. Since only a weapon forged by a god in this world can harm a god, and they were opposing an ancient evil god, this was very important. It stops at a great silver bow.

Me: (whispers to cleric) You find yourself in a dusty room full of weapons, with no idea how you got there.

Cleric: Where am I? What's this bow? (Picks it up)

Me: (whispers to cleric) when you pick up the bow, you realize that most of your early memories are false, and you are not what you think you are. You have memories of a great palace, and six kin that were sealed away with you. You also realize that you have great power still sealed within you. When the evil goddess won the Godwar millenia before, she used raw primal chaos to seal the other gods away from the material plane. After a mortal hero slew her in the Titan War some uncertain time later (40,000 years before the campaign), the gods decided to take precautions in case she was resurrected and repeated the feat. They sealed seven archangels away in the mortal realm, six of which had been found and killed. I had decided early on that our strange cleric was the seventh one, who's sealing had failed (the only reason that it's location had not been found) with the side effect of severe amnesia.

Some IC chatter later, the session came to an end.

Received a PM from the cleric's player after the game, thanking me for throwing his character concept away, and that he had already figured out [cleric] shouldn't exist, and had been wondering what was up.

Both situations either were or appeared to be pure railroading fiat (depending on your definition), but one player was furious (until they managed to dig up a bit more information about what was going on), while the other was delighted. It's a tricky thing to get right.

jedipotter
2015-01-05, 12:53 AM
Alternately, the PC can just get to the portal, because they came up with a workable strategy for the situation presented.

It really makes for a boring game if you let the players just have a free pass. It's like when Timmy strikes out, but the coach still lets him ''run a home run''.

Milodiah
2015-01-05, 01:39 AM
It really makes for a boring game if you let the players just have a free pass. It's [not at all] like when Timmy strikes out, but the coach still lets him ''run a home run''.

...it's not having a "free pass", it's solving the problem without having to kill the monster. If the monster was a wolf, for example, would you give it opposable thumbs and a bow with DM fiat because you were mad that they managed to tabletop-rpg their way past your little encounter? That's why I play these, because they let the players do things even the creator didn't come up with, so long as they're reasonable.

Sure, there comes a time where things shouldn't always be this easy. But to constantly move the goalposts just to make the players feel like they can't use lateral thinking to solve the problem because the problem always dodges their solution is what we're calling out here.

jedipotter
2015-01-05, 01:53 AM
...it's not having a "free pass", it's solving the problem without having to kill the monster. If the monster was a wolf, for example, would you give it opposable thumbs and a bow with DM fiat because you were mad that they managed to tabletop-rpg their way past your little encounter? That's why I play these, because they let the players do things even the creator didn't come up with, so long as they're reasonable.

Sure, there comes a time where things shouldn't always be this easy. But to constantly move the goalposts just to make the players feel like they can't use lateral thinking to solve the problem because the problem always dodges their solution is what we're calling out here.

Well, no but I would not have it be ''a wolf''.

As a good DM, I know what the characters can do. And most foes can make a good guess. And doing things like ''casting the spell alarm'' or ''giving the guard a crossbow'' are easy and obvious things to do.

Though i'm a ultra high magic power gamer too. My game world is magic by the bucket. I don't go for the default DMG ''people have invented fire'' type world.

Knaight
2015-01-05, 03:19 AM
It really makes for a boring game if you let the players just have a free pass. It's like when Timmy strikes out, but the coach still lets him ''run a home run''.

It makes for a boring game if it happens every time. Sometimes people think through things and come up with a clever solution that is relatively easy, and sometimes these are the most memorable moments. Sometimes something goes horribly wrong due to outside circumstances (or just someone being dumb), and the PC goals get outright further away.

Also, this isn't even remotely similar to the strike out scenario. It's more like if Timmy actually hit a home run, and then the coach threw the pitcher another ball to try and get him with to make it more interesting.

Arbane
2015-01-05, 05:11 AM
Though i'm a ultra high magic power gamer too. My game world is magic by the bucket. I don't go for the default DMG ''people have invented fire'' type world.

Don't you mean Orcus by the bucket? :smallbiggrin:


And most foes can make a good guess.

This strikes me as somewhat unlikely. They might be able to guess that the guy in the bathrobe and dunce-cap casts spells, but that narrows their capacities down to 'Can do ANYTHING'.

Knaight
2015-01-05, 05:30 AM
This strikes me as somewhat unlikely. They might be able to guess that the guy in the bathrobe and dunce-cap casts spells, but that narrows their capacities down to 'Can do ANYTHING'.

It depends on the setting and the circumstances. If someone is explicitly going after the party, they'll probably get some information first, and that could easily be the bulk of fights. I'd also note that this is the general RPG forum and not a D&D subforum, and in a lot of those the combat options are often fairly visibly obvious. The guy in the bathrobe and dunce-cap might be one of a number of things. The guy carrying a sniper rifle? Odds are their relevant capabilities for the time being center around shooting people from a long distance. The obvious small fighter with a clearly mounted laser? They're probably fast, and mostly shoot the laser. How good the pilot is is an unknown, and it's entirely possible that there's something nasty hidden up their sleeve (maybe they have exactly one torpedo meant for a larger ship that could pose a real problem), but there's still a general feel for it.

Necroticplague
2015-01-05, 06:10 AM
GO: Hit points are rolled randomly. It's normal and ok for a 10th level character to have 20 hit points. There is no plot armor, meta plot or storytelling safeties. A player might roll bad, and have a character suddenly die.

GT:Maximum hit points at every level. Normal is max HP(plus that 18 Con). All characters have plot armor and are part of the storytelling metaplot. Rolls do not matter, the story does. The only character death is story death.

I don't get it. How are the several different aspects related? Hit point level is unrelated to the lethality of the game, which is unrelated to the amount of Fiat use. You can have max HP and still have a highly lethal game, and you can still have a highly lethal game without any fiat.

Knaight
2015-01-05, 06:36 AM
I don't get it. How are the several different aspects related? Hit point level is unrelated to the lethality of the game, which is unrelated to the amount of Fiat use. You can have max HP and still have a highly lethal game, and you can still have a highly lethal game without any fiat.

Fiat use is completely unrelated. Hit point level is generally loosely tied in to the lethality of the game, in that the reasons for maximizing HP in the first place likely partially involve favoring a less lethal game. The average-random difference really isn't that way.

I will say that what overt fiat I have seen has generally been in more lethal games. The DM wants a character to die for their story, and they'll contort the rules to force it to happen.

goto124
2015-01-05, 06:47 AM
I will say that what overt fiat I have seen has generally been in more lethal games. The DM wants a character to die for their story, and they'll contort the rules to force it to happen.

Character as in PC or NPC? Also, if the game is on the more lethal side, why does the DM have to go to the trouble of fiat to make someone die?

Knaight
2015-01-05, 06:52 AM
Character as in PC or NPC? Also, if the game is on the more lethal side, why does the DM have to go to the trouble of fiat to make someone die?

PC. As for the necessity of fiat, it's generally that the character needed to die right then and there for their story, and the dice weren't having it. More lethal doesn't cover that.

Coidzor
2015-01-05, 07:05 AM
It really makes for a boring game if you let the players just have a free pass. It's like when Timmy strikes out, but the coach still lets him ''run a home run''.

Doing something that the DM didn't think of that nonetheless circumvents or defeats their challenge should not be counted as a failure on the part of the player.

neonchameleon
2015-01-06, 06:36 AM
Can someone tell me how the ''bad DM fiat'' of DM: The player just made an attack that would kill the NPC that I want to stay alive.....so I'll just ignore the damage and say ''he is baddy wounded, but gets away"

is different from the ''good DM fiat'' of : DM: The player just made an attack that would kill the NPC that I want to stay alive.....so I'll just say his spellcaster minion cast false life on the NPC just before the fight, so the NPC has enough hit points to survive the attack and say ''he is baddy wounded, but gets away".

Anyone?

Both are bad fiat because they take away the consequences of the players' actions.

A good DM will say "The NPC lies dead at your feet", actually letting the players' actions have consequences. They will then be flexible enough to keep the campaign going. Or they would have had the NPC spellcaster already have False Life when they prepared the caster. (And had the PCs dispelled the False Life, they get to kill the caster).


I'm the pure colorless. I say: the DM can do anything at any time for any reason.

And I'm a human being. I can right now strip naked and run down the high street singing Nine Hundred And Ninety Nine Green Bottles at the top of my lungs while holding my junk in one hand. Just because I can do something doesn't mean that it isn't an extremely bad idea.


Ah, finally a good point. You expect, as a player, to be told everything that effects your character. And then you will, of course, ''pretend'' like your character does not know.

As a player I expect that my character knows rather more about the local situation than I do. I expect that they have eyes that can see small movements and ears that can hear whispers, and skin that can feel the breeze and the direction of the air. Meanwhile all I have as a player is the rules and what little the DM can say. If I rely on just the DM's narration, I am effectively roleplaying not my character but someone blindfolded and relying on someone to say what is happening.


Eh, that's not quite DM Fiat, more like homebrew/houseruling, because he was told about it ahead of time. You created some rules, and the rules interacted with the decisions and the dice.

DM Fiat is more about Exceptions than Rules.
Gameplay is about the interactions between Rules, Stats, Decisions, and Dice.

Fiat is when the DM overrides the interactions.

QFT.


I've been doing some research into the whole "Best selling roleplaying games" thing. and I've been a little bit surprised.

The first thing to remember is that Fate is at the extreme light end of rules light RPGs that can hold a product line. The best previous attempt was Cinematic Unisystem/Buffy. Once you have the rules what do you then buy?

This means that any company that wants to market a line of RPGs is always going to be towards the rules-heavy end of the spectrum. RPGs are simply too expensive to develop to just sell one or two books unless you are a hobbyist doing it for the love. And hobbyists have neither the marketing nor the distribution. Sure the Ghostbusters game might do decently - but it doesn't become a line. It's effectively a one-shot boardgame.

So almost all the marketing goes to games with game lines. Which are, as I said, at least rules medium. The internet has changed this a little with PDF distribution and much better word of mouth marketing (allowing Evil Hat in).


According to the people who rate the industry, crunch-light/fiat-heavy systems aren't actually all much behind crunchy systems in terms of sales. They are more popular than D&D right now, at least.

That's because the last book but one put out for D&D in the period you list was in the first half of 2012. And the systemless Menzobaranzan sold terribly. WotC let go of their market - and I'm interested to see how 5e will end up doing. (I know I'm out of the habit of buying anything from WotC).

jedipotter
2015-01-06, 10:13 PM
And I'm a human being. I can right now strip naked and run down the high street singing Nine Hundred And Ninety Nine Green Bottles at the top of my lungs while holding my junk in one hand. Just because I can do something doesn't mean that it isn't an extremely bad idea.

Um....I'll agree just as you can do something does not mean you should. But you can.







(allowing Evil Hat in).

Free Hat!

neonchameleon
2015-01-07, 07:37 AM
Um....I'll agree just as you can do something does not mean you should. But you can

Of course you can. But each time you do it means that something has gone wrong.

ImNotTrevor
2015-01-07, 08:26 AM
Of course you can. But each time you do it means that something has gone wrong.

Or the kegger has gone gloriously right.

Raimun
2015-01-07, 12:50 PM
If you constantly move goal posts, the game becomes rather absurd. If anything can happen for no real reason, there will be no internal consistency and as a result, players don't aren't as willing to suspend their belief and/or get really immersed in the world.

Especially if the above is always a direct result of one of the players coming up with a smart plan that catches the GM (and the NPCs he's playing) off guard.

However, it's fair game if a plan fails because the monster GM prepared for the adventure is impervious to a certain tactic. That's not moving goal posts. ... And even that's assuming you don't use the "Final Fantasy X-solution", ie. every boss monster is immune to all status change attacks, except for perhaps one of the dozens.