Quote from: BedrockBrendan;500266Deciding to throw 20 orcs at the party, setting the DC for a climb check, etc. To me it only becomes GM fiat when the GM veers from the rules for some reason (for example when the rules produce implausible results and he just uses fiat to overide that).

I'm not clear - are you saying that only instances where the DM specifically contravenes a rule are fiat?

Because 'Rocks fall from the sky, everyone takes 1000d6 damage from being hit by rocks falling from space' might not be outside the rules, but I would think many people would claim that was fiat.

Kaldric, why does DM Fiat have to be negative? Couldn't it work for the benefit of the Players, like in the example I gave upthread?

I think we're all making this way too complicated. I think Kyle hit it on the head-it's being a dick with the trust given to you as a GM or DM. It's being capricious with peoples fun.

Quote from: jeff37923;500272Kaldric, why does DM Fiat have to be negative? Couldn't it work for the benefit of the Players, like in the example I gave upthread?

Jeff - sorry if I wasn't clear - I posted this upthread earlier:

Quoteedit: As an aside - I think fiat has negative connotations - but it's not, in and of itself, negative. I know that by far the majority of GMs who make decisions by fiat do so in the interests of making the game more fun for everyone - that's usually the goal they're trying to serve. If it works for them and their players, I have no problem with it, in principle.

I think the word has negative connotations. I don't think that fiat rulings are always negative - I think, most often, the DM is using fiat in the service of fun.

Quote from: Kaldric;500271I'm not clear - are you saying that only instances where the DM specifically contravenes a rule are fiat?

Because 'Rocks fall from the sky, everyone takes 1000d6 damage from being hit by rocks falling from space' might not be outside the rules, but I would think many people would claim that was fiat.

My point was really that there is more than one definition of GM fiat. I tend to think of fiat as being more about going above the rules or side stepping them.

Would personally classify the example as lousy GMing and very poor decision making but not neccessarily fiat IMO. Is it fiat to throw a hord of 20 orcs at the party? But I guess the rock example might also be an instant of fiat.

Brendan: I agree that there is more than one definition. I'm just looking for a single definition that works for me, that calls things fiat that I 'feel' are fiat, and doesn't call things fiat that don't 'feel' like fiat to me.

Then, when I get into discussions about decision-making and rulings, and when I'm thinking about why I'm ruling on something in my own game, I have a definition - I know exactly what I'm talking about. I find applying my definitions to various hypothetical cases offered by other people, and refining the definitions in the face of opposition, helps. It gets other perspectives in the discussion, whether I end up including that input in my final definition, or not.

Then - whether the other party in the discussion agrees with me as to what fiat is, or not - they'll at least know exactly what I mean when I say fiat.

They may not know exactly what they mean. I find this is often the case. They have an 'I can't define it, but I know it when I see it' definition that works for them enough of the time that they don't feel like they need a more precise one.

-- It may look like I'm trying to persuade everyone that my definitions of 'fiat' and 'ruling' are correct, the one and only definitions. I'm not - I'm trying to persuade myself that my definition is correct, by testing it against the definitions of others, applying it to various scenarios, and revising it when people bring up points I haven't considered.

Quote from: Kaldric;500283Brendan: I agree that there is more than one definition. I'm just looking for a single definition that works for me, that calls things fiat that I 'feel' are fiat, and doesn't call things fiat that don't 'feel' like fiat to me.

Then, when I get into discussions about decision-making and rulings, and when I'm thinking about why I'm ruling on something in my own game, I have a definition - I know exactly what I'm talking about. I find applying my definitions to various hypothetical cases offered by other people, and refining the definitions in the face of opposition, helps. It gets other perspectives in the discussion, whether I end up including that input in my final definition, or not.

Then - whether the other party in the discussion agrees with me as to what fiat is, or not - they'll at least know exactly what I mean when I say fiat.

They may not know exactly what they mean. I find this is often the case. They have an 'I can't define it, but I know it when I see it' definition that works for them enough of the time that they don't feel like they need a more precise one.

-- It may look like I'm trying to persuade everyone that my definitions of 'fiat' and 'ruling' are correct, the one and only definitions. I'm not - I'm trying to persuade myself that my definition is correct, by testing it against the definitions of others, applying it to various scenarios, and revising it when people bring up points I haven't considered.

Okay, I didn't realize that. Here is what I have for your definition:

QuoteFiat is a decision arising from personal preference for an outcome. Any justification is 'post hoc', after the fact.
A ruling is a decision arising from impartial consideration of the pertinent facts of the scenario. Justification comes before the decision.

This actually sounds a bit like mine with the exception that it isn't simply about going around the RAW, it is about going around any process like rules, logic, etc and focusing entirely on results.

Before I go on let me know if this sounds right. Also is fiat something you are trying to avoid (whatever the definition ends up being, it is always bad) or is it something you want to use more judiciously (because while it may have some utility, it is potentially a problem at the table).

Quote from: Kaldric;500125GMs, in roleplaying games, don't have fiat power.

I think you'll find that many people disagree with this. For example, a large chunk of the OSR movement believes that reliance on GM fiat is the defining characteristic of old school gaming. (I disagree with them.)

In general, however, I agree with the distinction you're drawing. I think the one important thing to understand, however, is that this is a spectrum.

On one end of the spectrum you have GM decisions that are completely disconnected from the existing rules. These are examples of clear GM fiat and the same decision would be made regardless of what rule system the GM was using or even if there were no rules at all.

On the other end of the spectrum you have a very simple ruling: The players want to do X. There is a rule for X. We will use the rule to determine X.

Inbetween you have a broad spectrum of gray.

For example, let's consider the case of jumping across a crevasse. At one end of the scale you have pure fiat: The GM says "yes, you can" or "no, you can't" based on his desire for them to do so, his whim, or somesuch. At the other end of the scale you have the simple application of 3E's jumping rule: The GM simply picks up the rule, applies it, and determines whether or not the action is a success.

Inbetween you might have OD&D, which lacks a clear rule for jumping: So the GM says, "He has a Dex of 15. He could probably make this jump easily, so yes." That seems to still clearly be a ruling; the GM is simply figuring out how to apply the mechanics in a situation for which a clear rule does not exist.

Heading further into the gray we have thinking like: "His character background says that he was an Olympic track athlete, so it makes sense that he should be able to make this jump." or "Last week he wasn't able to jump over that pit and this crevasse is even wider, so it makes sense that he won't be able to make this jump." Are those rulings or fiat? It's getting a little harder to judge. (Is the latter a ruling based on a previous fiat? Or just more fiat?)

Another way you can draw the distinction is that it is very easy for rulings to become rules; it is difficult or impossible for fiat to do so.

For example, in a case of pure fiat (where I say "yes, he can jump that crevasse because I say so") it is very difficult to then make an informed ruling based on that fiat. At the purely local level it probably means I'll decide that the character make that same jump again, but whether or not that will have any wider applicability will probably still depend on some arbitrary decision-making.

OTOH, the more concrete the ruling the easier it is to begin applying it as a rule. For example, if I say "he has a Dex of 15, so he can make the jump", then it's relatively easy to apply that as a rule as decide that, yes, the character with a Dex of 16 can also easily make the jump.

If I go even further and base the ruling on something like "I'll say that you can jump 2' for every point of Dex", then it's very easy to simply treat that as a rule going forward.

A third way of looking at this is, like stu2000 said, consistency: The easier it is to reapply the same decision in a consistent fashion across multiple situations (because it's based on some sort of meaningful criteria), the more likely it is that the decision is a ruling. The more difficult it is to do so, the more likely it is that the decision is fiat.

Which is one of the reasons why I say that a properly structured rule facilitates rulings.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;500286This actually sounds a bit like mine with the exception that it isn't simply about going around the RAW, it is about going around any process like rules, logic, etc and focusing entirely on results.

Before I go on let me know if this sounds right. Also is fiat something you are trying to avoid (whatever the definition ends up being, it is always bad) or is it something you want to use more judiciously (because while it may have some utility, it is potentially a problem at the table).

Yours, as I understand, is about stepping outside rules as written - as in, Fiat is ruling on a situation in contravention of the rules. Mine is (so far): Ruling on a situation based on personal preference for an outcome. Sounds right to me.

So - I would say that if rocks fell on the party out of the sky and killed them, because the DM wanted it to happen (because he was tired, because he was angry with the players, etc), that's fiat in my book. Ruling from personal preference for a result. Not really a ruling at all - simply a declaration. This happens because I wanted it to happen - it also doesn't break any rules. Falling rocks cause a lot of damage, it's in the rules.

Same situation: Rocks fall, everyone dies. But this time, this happened because the party was standing around on Avernus, and in that scenario, burning rocks falling out of the sky and killing everyone is a ruling that completely agrees with the scenario. That's something that can, and does, happen on Avernus. As long as the rocks fell according to an established procedure and not specifically because of GM desire for party deaths, it's no longer fiat in my book - it's an outcome that arises from the scenario, rather than something that happens entirely because the DM wants it to.

--
I think the positive or negative value of fiat is dependent on a lot of variables. I'm trying to come up with a definition that is 'value-free' - that simply describes what's happening.

What a lot of you are calling fiat, I call cheating.

I don't think fiat should be used to break rules or alter die rolls--except maybe in that egregious Traveller example or something similar.

Fiat to me has generally meant narrative material made up on the spot, essentially out of nothing. Of course--I've seen a lot of the fiat examples y'all have been bringing up. I just never gave them that name. Cheating can be a GM tool sometimes, I guess, but I'm on the end of the spectrum that prefers that one not be used.

I think every table has their own idiosyncrasies. One players/GM's cheating is another players/GM's acceptable behavior. One (wo)mans setting is another's dumpster.  I see no reason to get bogged down by this. if you're at my table, then you've agreed ahead of time to how I run the game. If at any point you don't like what I do, you're welcome to voice your opinions, or vote with free time by taking your game somewhere else.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;500295On one end of the spectrum...

Good analysis, thanks for the link.

My point of disagreement is that I don't believe a GM making a ruling based on a reasonable extrapolation of the circumstances in a scenario is exercising 'fiat'. He's using a pre-defined mechanic called 'common sense' or 'genre knowledge' or whatever. He's got a procedure he's following, there's a cause behind his decision. The mechanic may be very vaguely defined (common sense) but it's there - there's a reason for his decision outside himself.

Fiat denotes a lack of cause outside the self. It is, because I have the power to say it is and I want it to be this way, no other reason necessary. A GM who rules a certain way because circumstances or 'common sense' dictate he do so isn't exercising fiat (by my definition). He's got reasons outside of preference.

As for consistency: Rulings made reasonably from identical premises should be reasonably consistent. If they're not consistent enough, describe your ruling with a mechanic (there's usually an approved format in each system), and refer back to it. Now it's a rule.

Quote from: stu2000;500323What a lot of you are calling fiat, I call cheating.

I don't think fiat should be used to break rules or alter die rolls--except maybe in that egregious Traveller example or something similar.

Fiat to me has generally meant narrative material made up on the spot, essentially out of nothing. Of course--I've seen a lot of the fiat examples y'all have been bringing up. I just never gave them that name. Cheating can be a GM tool sometimes, I guess, but I'm on the end of the spectrum that prefers that one not be used.

For me, fiat is "It's going to be this way, because I want it to be this way, no other reason". You can have rules in a game that let players do that. Fate points, narrative control mechanics, etc. You say it, it happens that way. Some games give DMs fiat power, explicitly or not - by saying 'If you don't like the way something is turning out as you play, just change it'. Hardly cheating if the rules say to do it.

Ugh. The semantic confusion is why I prefer to use "GM adjudication" or something similar to refer to GM decision making. If it's necessary to say that the rules are being overruled, then you can specify that as well.

You can see the problem in Justin's post, above. When Kaldric says GM don't have fiat power, he means fiat as something different from rulings. I would be very surprised if the OSR folks believe that "fiat" distinguishes old-school games unless, by "fiat", you mean "rulings". So not surprisingly, two different meanings leads to two different conclusions.

In general: first nail down what you mean when you use the words, then argue facts and opinions using those established meanings.

Quote from: Serious Paul;500328I think every table has their own idiosyncrasies. One players/GM's cheating is another players/GM's acceptable behavior. One (wo)mans setting is another's dumpster.  I see no reason to get bogged down by this. if you're at my table, then you've agreed ahead of time to how I run the game. If at any point you don't like what I do, you're welcome to voice your opinions, or vote with free time by taking your game somewhere else.

Absolutely. This is basically just me using all of you to clarify my own ideas on the subject, not me trying to tell you how you have to play. Sorry if the format gives that impression.