Kudos/Commentary: Q&A Thread, Luke Crane

[Abyssal Maw]

Here's a pretty good example of how out-of-touch and lacking in experience the forgies are. I think this is fairly representative.

1) 3.5 has it's weak elements. GM Fiat is one of them. Play speed is another one. But on the whole, it's a more robust and consistent set than previous iterations.

Now, he's already admitted he's rarely played it, and never in a campaign sense. And yet he brings up GM Fiat. The truth is, the current version of D&D is much more likely than any previous edition to have both players and GMs playing with the same set of rules.

The examples I have accumulated over the last 6 years are pretty extensive, but they're mostly in the tactical game- which is the only one where fiat matters. The tactical game assumes fairness and equal participation: You'll often be playing and a player can (and will) call you on whether something is legal or not. For example: movement, or whether an Attack of Opportunity is warranted is often something the player has to be able to pick up on. "Did he move through my threatened area?", "does that villain/monster have spring attack?" etc. Are all questions that players can ask. And usually, they can take advanatge of, by using the exact same set of rules that the GM uses. "If he runs there, I get an Attack of Opportunity on him..." "Oh is he casting? From that square? Well, he either has to make a concentration check or he's toast."

And this simply has to be so-- this is one of the main features of modern D&D-- and one of the things that bothers the true old-schoolers the most. In fact, under the current rules, players and GMs have to be on equal tactical footing because otherwise the tactical system breaks down. If players set up an entire feat tree and tactical style that revolves around (for example) taunting enemies into a threat zone and then pwning them, you can't fucking fiat that away in 3.5. Likewise layered reach tactics, likewise flank and spank, likewise optimized marshalling zones.. or really any of the really advanced stuff in the D&D tactical rules I've seen players pull-- really assumes and in fact depends upon equality of the GM and the players when it comes to the rules.

Actual GM Fiat in D&D 3.5 is of the "I'm saying you can't play a drow in this campaign". (Negotiation of those kinds of parameters is, by the way, completely identical to the way most of these story-games are run.)

The second thing is: I suspect a redefinition of 'fiat' as a term is in the offing. But I guess we'll see.

[Koltar]

By-the-way, not a big deal ...but I'm sick of the phrase "GM Fiat".

Usually when its flung about - its be someone who desperatly wanted to GM a game  but couldn't get any players. So that take their resaentment out on good GMs by trying to make games that undercut the GM's authority.

- Ed C.




...I'm not referring to Abyssal Maw by-the-way,but to Luke and others that use the term casually.

[One Horse Town]

GM fiat is of no problem whatsoever if you have either an experienced group of players or have played within your current group for a while and built up trust. I suspect problems come when neither of these is true. Which is, to me, a strange basis to hang some design decisions on. Not bad, not good, but a stange 'baseline'. I'd rather that the baseline decisions were based on trusting the people who were going to be playing my game.

As per usual. YMMV.

[Abyssal Maw]

By-the-way, not a big deal ...but I'm sick of the phrase "GM Fiat".

Usually when its flung about - its be someone who desperatly wanted to GM a game  but couldn't get any players. So that take their resaentment out on good GMs by trying to make games that undercut the GM's authority.

- Ed C.




...I'm not referring to Abyssal Maw by-the-way,but to Luke and others that use the term casually.

(haha. Anyhow, I totally agree.)

The thing is, they say GM Fiat because this generation grew up on that whole 90s era of gaming where the popular advice was you couldn't even make characters without sitting down with the GM. And offtimes there didn't even exist rules for certain situations. Like grabbing an item out of another guys hand.. "do I get it or not?" well, if you have to just arbitrarily say yes or no, then sure, that's an example of fiat. If you actually have a rule for it, then it isn't.

But ironically--
1) Many of these people are the exact same guys who advocated that back then.
2) Many of them still advocate such measures as having the GM very involved at character creation.
3) In many cases, they've replaced GM fiat with Game designer fiat, and the games suffer because of it.
4) Say yes or roll the dice- their big mantra? Is an example of fiat. It's still an arbitrary decision. Even if it's predetermined "yes", if there's no rule, and the GM has to sign off on it, it's fiat.

[jrients]

Maw is making sense to me, but I would note that GM Fiat can be a useful tool when it is not abused.

[luke]

Now, he's already admitted he's rarely played it, and never in a campaign sense.

And here's an example where you're not listening and you refuse to move beyond your prejudices.

You asked me if I played and I told you.

9. I played Advanced Dungeons and Dragons from 1987 to 1997. The two longest campaigns lasted 3 years and 4 years. I never played AD&D 2e. I spurned it! Fah, revised rules and game balance, fah! Nor have I played more than a handful of D&D 3.X sessions.

Sett asked me about my characters for AD&D and I answered him, too.

[James J Skach]

Whistle!

Luke, you specifically said that you hadn't played more than a handful - I don't think it's a stretch to use rarely (given the amount it is safe to assume you play given your love for your own game!).

AM, "never in a campaign sense" is not a fair leap, given lukes answer of a handful of times. I've seen campaigns that lasted only 5 to 10 session.  Short, sure, but a campaign nonetheless.

No yellow cards or ejections.  Play on.  Try to be nice....

[Pierce Inverarity]

Luke and AM, do you both agree on the following two points?--

1) Someone's GOT to wear the Viking Hat.

2) Given this, it might as well be the designer (BW, 3.x, doesn't matter; Mearls = Luke).

[luke]

You're right, only played 3.5 a handful of times. Damn it, but in this context there's no difference! I've been out-internetted.

[Pseudoephedrine]

I heard the first edition of Burning Wheel was written entirely in baby's blood too!

[One Horse Town]

You're right, only played 3.5 a handful of times. Damn it, but in this context there's no difference! I've been out-internetted.

[-E.]

Maw is making sense to me, but I would note that GM Fiat can be a useful tool when it is not abused.

The idea that GM fiat is a bad thing is an example of the profound misunderstanding many indie gamers have about roleplaying dynamics.

GM Fiat and vision make traditional games *better* -- it's one of the reasons the traditional model is so robust and popular.

Cheers,
-E.

[Thanatos02]

The idea that GM fiat is a bad thing is an example of the profound misunderstanding many indie gamers have about roleplaying dynamics.

GM Fiat and vision make traditional games *better* -- it's one of the reasons the traditional model is so robust and popular.

Cheers,
-E.

It's my opinion that a game can have Fiat or not. It changes the playing style, but it's not objectively good or bad, simply what the group wants. Fiat, in a healthy group, is only by virtue of the gaming group. A healthy group should always be able to stop and say, "Well, hey, this is something that really sits poorly with me."

But that doesn't make Fiat a tool every group wants to use. There are reasons for and against, by personal preference. If I were gaming with people I didn't know well, or at all, it might be nice to know the DM can't fiat me into a corner I didn't want to be fiatted into. If I know them better, I might feel more comfortable about it.

[Thanatos02]

I heard the first edition of Burning Wheel was written entirely in baby's blood too!

I hear that's why Brantai bought it. Personally, I never use baby blood unless I'm baking, though. It's too expensive to waste on just anything.

[-E.]

It's my opinion that a game can have Fiat or not. It changes the playing style, but it's not objectively good or bad, simply what the group wants. Fiat, in a healthy group, is only by virtue of the gaming group. A healthy group should always be able to stop and say, "Well, hey, this is something that really sits poorly with me."

But that doesn't make Fiat a tool every group wants to use. There are reasons for and against, by personal preference. If I were gaming with people I didn't know well, or at all, it might be nice to know the DM can't fiat me into a corner I didn't want to be fiatted into. If I know them better, I might feel more comfortable about it.

I don't think that's unreasonable, but I doubt I'd want to play with a GM who I didn't trust to use fiat -- even if the game somehow limited fiat (in other words, for me, limiting fiat doesn't really solve the issue).

I'm trying to think of any situation where an absence of fiat would be a benefit for me and can't see it... it seems to imply an absence of trust between the players and the GM (or a competitive relationship, but given the dialog around tyrannical an patriarchal GM's, I think in many cases it's a trust thing).

I can believe that people get into gaming groups where they don't trust that their preferences will be respected -- but I see no reason to believe that represents any significant majority of players and I think for those it does address, I'd recommend a non-mechanical solution.

Cheers,
-E.