Quote from: Elliot Wilen;500343In general: first nail down the what you mean when you use the words, then argue facts and opinions using those established meanings.

Exactly, thank you. This is me, nailing down what I mean by the words, with help from everyone here. When, and if, it comes up again, I'll say: Here's what I mean: Fiat is 'blahblahblah' whatever string of words I end up thinking is the most accurate (fits fiat) precise (doesn't fit anything else) definition.

Quote from: Kaldric;500342For 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.

I've always thought fiat was "outside the rules" so if the rules explicitly encourage making stuff up ad hoc, then it's not fiat. To me, the word itself says "arbitrary decree." I've always considered it appropriate and expected to have the GM arbitrarily decree where players begin a scenario, what player options (race, class, etc) were appropriate for a scenario--things the GM decrees in order to ground the game and give it a context for the players. So everyone's on the same page. To me, that's GM fiat and it's perfectly acceptable.

Having some old-schoolish tastes, I also think it's appropriate for a GM, in the absense of a carefully-prepared random encounter table, to think to himself, "This area is supposed to be infested with trolls--it's been hours and no trolls," and then say, "suddenly there's trolls!" Theere's a criterion in his head--the presumption that they're in a troll-rich area--but there's no rule--no carefully-prepared encounter table to roll. So if everyone's on the same page about the initial presumption, that's acceptable GM fiat. Of course--not all the time is everyone on the same page. And sometimes a poor or frustrated GM will spring trolls spitefully out of nowhere. This kind of thing is where bad GM fiat starts.

Now--in a game where there's dice and rules and everyone has a clear understanding of how things go, I generally believe the rules should govern the laws of the world. When they don't, I consider that cheating. I generally consider cheating to be very bad, but in the Traveller example of the TPK based on a couple awful rolls, I think almost anyone would be tempted to cheat, and could be forgiven for it. Death during character generation came up rarely, but was so startling that as a group, we decided that would represent some form of permanent disability, rather than death. This was a ruling. In my experience, it was a fairly common house rule.

In a game like ocTane or Fate, where the GM and the players are both handed sections of context and background to develop ad hoc, they aren't indulging in any fiat to do so. It's not exactly arbitrary--it's according to the rules. Should the GM attempt some type of decree outside the rules of the games, that could be considered GM fiat, but it wouldn't often be a sound play choice.

I don't think any of that was controversial. I also enjoy bouncing words off folks till I have a clear idea of how I mean them. ;o)

I'm pretty much trying to avoid putting 'the rules' in my definition. Because having a rule that says you can exercise fiat, doesn't mean you're not exercising fiat. It just means the rules gave you permission to do it.

If your ruling has no reasoning or justification behind it other than 'I want it this way', that's an arbitrary decree. That's fiat, whether someone gave you the right to do it, or not.

A rule that says "The GM can make arbitrary decrees" doesn't make those decrees less arbitrary. They're authorized, but still fiat.

You can take rules out of "fiat," but I don't think you can take them out of "GM fiat." And you sure can't take them out of "rulings." And if you don't have rules as a point of commonality between the two concepts, I don't think you can make a comparison.

I don't know. That may be your point.

Quote from: Settembrini;500253It is wrong though!

Communication is NOT (really not!) the problem.

Blaming communication is lame late 60ies kind of thinking. Also: wrong in this very case.

:rolleyes:

Ignoramus.

Quote from: Kaldric;500337My 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.

Well, unless you're postulating a GM suffering a schizophrenic breakdown, I think you've successfully defined "GM fiat" out of existence. People who aren't insane have reasons for making the decisions they make.

Quote from: Kaldric;500478I'm pretty much trying to avoid putting 'the rules' in my definition.

Which is a problem, because when most people use "GM fiat" they appear to be using it to mean the relationship between the GM's decisions and his use (or non-use) of the rules.

I think trying to find precise definitions for terms can be useful. But it's only useful if the definition you create has something to do with how the term is actually being used. Otherwise you would be better served to find a new term to describe whatever it is you want to talk about.

tl;dr: People take fiat for a failure to follow the written rules, when what's really at issue is that fiat is a failure to follow consistent logic and reason arising from the scenario at hand.

QuoteMy 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.

Sorry this wasn't more clear; I believe fiat is arbitrary and arises from the personal desire of the GM, no external cause. Rulings based in the situation, the scenario, or on precedent are not fiat, because they have a cause outside of 'I declare this to be so' - which is pretty much what fiat means - 'it is so because I want it to be so, no other reason'.

QuoteI'm pretty much trying to avoid putting 'the rules' in my definition.

QuoteWhich is a problem, because when most people use "GM fiat" they appear to be using it to mean the relationship between the GM's decisions and his use (or non-use) of the rules.

Sure - but then, when most people use lots of terms, they have only a vague idea of what they really mean. I think that when most people use 'GM fiat', they're not actually expressing any satisfaction, or dissatisfaction, over whether the GM is following the rules or not - after all, in Amber, the GM is supposed to rule on interactions, yet people claim a GM who follows this written rule is exercising 'fiat'. When people talk about 'fiat' in discussions that specifically pertain to it, they're generally expressing the opinion that a GM ruling was arbitrary. Or, as we've seen, they think he's cheating, or other things - they dislike the feeling that his actions aren't under constraint, and they conflate logic and reason with 'rules'. The see a DM making decisions that don't arise from logic/reason, and they assume that's because he's not following the rules - the normal expression of logic and reason in games.

For instance, in your article on GM fiat, a couple of the problems you point out only arise if the rulings are at least somewhat arbitrary.

(1) You have to keep track of them.
- This is only a problem if the rulings change in an arbitrary way. If you rule from logic and reason, that dictates that when a similar or identical situation arises, you would rule much the same way again. Reasonable rulings on reasonably similar situations are reasonably similar - you don't need to keep track of them unless they're arbitrary enough that you can't reasonably duplicate them.

(2) Hasty decisions will frequently have unintended consequences.
- This is true - assuming that the GM makes a hasty, arbitrary decision without properly thinking it through. If the ruling is grounded in the setting/scenario, then it should set good precedent. Bad rulings are possible, but fiat rulings, made arbitrarily, will far more frequently have bad consequences than rulings made thoughtfully.

(3) Even if the house rule you came up with on the fly is good the end result is no different than if you’d had a good rule to start with.
- This is specific to the 'rulings, not rules' argument, and I agree with you here. Not having rules for things is not, of itself, any particular virtue. Rules were rulings at some point. Rulings, assuming you decide that they are good rulings, and there is presumption that the situation will come up again, become rules.
--
I think all this leads into the situation you described before.
If a ruling arises from the scenario, it can be used as a rule - if the scenario arises again, the same rule will likely apply - reason isn't arbitrary.
If a ruling arises from within the ruler, by fiat, it can't be used as a rule, it doesn't arise from the scenario, and has no connection to it. If the same scenario comes up again, there's no reason to use the previous ruling - it was just the expression of the desire of the ruler, and that has likely changed.

I think many people believe that fiat is about the rules. I disagree - I think it's about the motivation. Is the motive for ruling an expression of the scenario? Or is the motive for ruling an expression of the arbitrary whim of the ruler? If it's an expression of the scenario, the ruling will apply in all scenarios of that type. It's a new rule. (It may be bad, or good, depending on how thoughtful the ruling was, etc). If it's an expression of the arbitrary whim of the GM, it's not linked to the scenario, only the GM's desire for an outcome at that moment. Next time the situation arises, he may desire a different outcome.

Quote from: Kaldric;500672Sorry this wasn't more clear; I believe fiat is arbitrary and arises from the personal desire of the GM, no external cause.

Reading between the lines, it appears that you're attempting to use "GM fiat" to mean "anything that isn't simulationist".

Thus "I'll allow it because it's cool" is fiat (according to you), but "I'll allow it because it makes sense" is not. Despite the fact that both of those decisions are coming from the GM (a) making an arbitrary value judgement on what's important and (b) arbitrarily deciding which outcome best accomplishes the arbitrary goal he's chosen.

That's... hugely problematic. Partly because, again, it's radically out of whack with how people actually use the term. Mostly because you're trying to disenfranchise wide swaths of the hobby. Significantly because you're lumping rules in there on the unexamined hypothesis that rules are always simulationist.

You don't have to read between the lines, you just have to read the entirety of what he wrote: "I don't believe a GM making a ruling based on a reasonable extrapolation of the circumstances in a scenario is exercising 'fiat'."

It's true though, that if you're going to use a term even in a circumscribed context, it's not a good idea to use one that has a lot of emotional or political baggage, because you'll just get people arguing with you over definitions.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;500684Reading between the lines, it appears that you're attempting to use "GM fiat" to mean "anything that isn't simulationist".

Thus "I'll allow it because it's cool" is fiat (according to you), but "I'll allow it because it makes sense" is not.

Only if cool always and absolutely equals however the GM wants the situation to resolve, regardless of whether it's actually cool or not.

Say that the GM writes an adventure. The players do something that's going to ruin it, but it's a really cool thing. If the GM looks at the situation, and says "No. I don't want that to happen, so it doesn't", that's fiat. If he says "You know, I really don't want that to happen - but I'll allow it because it's the coolest thing that could arise from this scenario" - technically, it's not fiat.

There's an external rule the GM is following - the rule of cool. It's not simulationist, but it does arise from the scenario, instead of being wholly GM preference.

My main issue with 'rule of cool' is that it often becomes 'rule of whatever the GM wants to happen', which isn't really a rule, it's fiat. Actually - I don't have an issue with this, if people want to play this way, that's their business.

I think there's a refinement arising here. Justin's right, my first stab at a definition does seem to privilege purely simulationist stuff. Mainly, I think, because the 'common sense' factor is largely a shared body of knowledge about how the way the world works. Gravity does this, things act this way - things we all assume are as they are. But, you can also have external factors that aren't simulationist. You could look at a scenario and rule based on which outcome is 'coolest'. Or 'funniest'. Or 'most consistent with the Will of the Deity'. The reasoning doesn't have to be purely simulationist, but it needs to arise from an external factor.

I'm still pretty solid on fiat arising from personal preference without external justification. That's what the word means, pretty much.

As long as the DM doesn't simply assume 'what's cool' or 'what's funny' is whatever they want to happen for other reasons than 'its cool' or 'its funny'. Just the same as the DM doesn't simply assume 'gravity' or 'physics' is whatever they want it to be at that moment. External means external - something, even if it's just social convention, which the DM can look at objectively and judge. If it's entirely subjective, entirely internal, the DM isn't exercising judgment - he's exercising fiat.

Quote from: Kaldric;500693Only if cool always and absolutely equals however the GM wants the situation to resolve, regardless of whether it's actually cool or not.

Say that the GM writes an adventure. The players do something that's going to ruin it, but it's a really cool thing. If the GM looks at the situation, and says "No. I don't want that to happen, so it doesn't", that's fiat. If he says "You know, I really don't want that to happen - but I'll allow it because it's the coolest thing that could arise from this scenario" - technically, it's not fiat.

I'm not sure whether you're trying to say that:

(1) The GM can never weigh competing interests while making a decision. If they do, it's fiat.

or

(2) Ruling by simulationism or cool-factor or funniness is totally OK, but ruling on the basis of story quality and/or prep conservation is totally fiat.

If it's the former, your position seems even less tenable to me. The same logic could apply to, "The chasm is really wide, but he's really strong." The GM just took two different factors into consideration, so it must be fiat. (It's functionally identical to, "That's really cool, but this plot point is really important.")

If it's the latter, then you'll need to provide your Approved List of Ruling Methodologies.

QuoteYou could look at a scenario and rule based on which outcome is 'coolest'. Or 'funniest'. Or 'most consistent with the Will of the Deity'. The reasoning doesn't have to be purely simulationist, but it needs to arise from an external factor.

I don't really understand how the determination of "coolest" or "funniest" arises from anything other than the GM's subjective judgment. (I guess in the latter case we could have a laugh meter hooked up to measure alternatives?)

More generally, this just boils back to my original point: People who aren't insane generally have reasons for why they make decisions. It's not clear to me, therefore, that your definition of "GM fiat" (being a decision made with no rationale whatsoever) actually exists outside of GMs who are insane.

Well, that's confused.

I'm certainly not trying to say "The GM can never weigh competing interests while making a decision. If they do, it's fiat." In fact, quite the opposite - he can weigh any number of factors reasonably pertinent to the situation he's ruling on. Hope that's clear, now.

I'm also not trying to say "Ruling by simulationism or cool-factor or funniness is totally OK, but ruling on the basis of story quality and/or prep conservation is totally fiat."

I'm also not trying to claim that fiat decisions are made entirely without cause.

Only that fiat decisions are made because the decider has an outcome he prefers for reasons beyond the scenario. It doesn't matter why he prefers it. Only that he wants it for some reason other than considered judgment based on factors pertinent to the situation he's ruling on.

There's also a tone of 'fiat bad, not-fiat good', which I'm also trying to avoid.

----

Anyway, clearing the whiteboard and trying again.

GM fiat is a decision that arises from partiality toward an outcome, when that partiality is not based on a considered judgment of elements of that situation.

Doesn't matter why the GM is partial toward an outcome. Or what he's basing the decision on. If that partiality arises from anything but a considered judgment of the situation and elements immediately pertinent to it, it's a fiat judgment. Fiat judgments aren't justified by elements of the situation.

That's what fiat judgments are - judgments that don't have to be, or aren't, justified by whatever process is appropriate - they are justified only by authority or power, not constrained by circumstance. Military fiat, for instance, when the military makes and enforces edicts without political process. Fiat money, when governments print money without backing it up with anything but their words - no justification other than 'The government says so". A king's decisions are fiat - he doesn't have to justify them.
---

And this leads us to the opposing type of judgment. The justified judgment - the ruling. When a ruling is justified by elements of the situation that prompted the ruling (or a wider convention that applies), then it's not fiat. There's a basis for the ruling outside the GM's authority.

---
Looking up the OED, I wonder if I shouldn't just revert to that 'authority' as the main point - it's a simpler definition, and includes partiality automatically.

GM fiat is a decision or ruling that has no justification other than the GM's authority.

Maybe that would be best.

I'm not sure there's a big difference, but personally I feel:

1.  If I declare something I want to have happen, happens, I'm exercising fiat.  Eg in my Tuesday night online Yggsburgh 1e AD&D game the PCs went into the Deerwood, I chose to deploy adventure hook #2, 'Carnivorous Ape attacks hunters'.  By fiat.

2. If I'm rolling dice and adjudicating the result, I'm making a ruling, before or after roll.  The Elf Fighter was scouting ahead, I had to decide what the chance she, a non-Ranger, could follow a blood trail through the wood.  I made a ruling, then rolled.  
Similarly, earlier I had rolled on the Inn Encounter Table, got '01%: Agents - Baron Redfort'. I had to decide what that meant; I decided they were seeking Gold Hal the River Pirate, since I already knew Redfort was an enemy of Gold Hal, and they approached the PCs because the PCs had just taken out Lord Ollie, a brigand who was also an enemy of the Baron.  That felt to me like a ruling, but you could call it fiat if you like.

Quote from: Kaldric;500780Only that fiat decisions are made because the decider has an outcome he prefers for reasons beyond the scenario.

Things you've declared to be "part of the scenario":

- Simulationist elements
- Rule of Cool
- Rule of Funny

And things you've declared to be "beyond the scenario":

- Ruining the prepared scenario

I suspect the problem at this point is that there doesn't seem to be any clear definition of what "beyond the scenario" means to you.