TheRPGSite

These are some thoughts I've been knocking around - not fully formed yet. I'm mostly trying to come up with the best way to express the idea that DM Rulings and DM Fiat are NOT the same thing. So this is kind of repetitive, saying the same thing in slightly different ways.
--
Fiat has a connotation of autocracy, of decree. Kings have fiat power. God has fiat power - what he says, happens. It's a jussive subjunctive Latin verb - a commandment, basically, saying "Let it be this way". No justification - just a command.

GMs, in roleplaying games, don't have fiat power. They have the power to make rulings. And there's a difference. A ruling depends on precedent, logic, reason, and a commonly held law.

A DM who says "Rocks fall from the clear blue sky, everyone dies" is exercising fiat power. He makes a decree, it happens, that's it.

A DM who says "Because your character is weak, and palsied from the poison, I'm going to rule that he can't make it up the hill" is NOT exercising fiat power. He's making a ruling, an impartial judgment. It's based on something - fiat is not based on anything except autocratic power.

So. If anyone claims something is "DM fiat" when the situation concerns a DM making a considered, impartial judgment based on precedent, the genre, and common sense, you can tell him he's wrong.

Rulings are not (generally) fiat. If the DM considers the situation and makes a judgment, that's a ruling. If the DM wants something to be a certain way, and simply declares that to be so - that's fiat.

Authorial power is the ultimate in fiat power. Things in stories generally happen because the author wants them to happen that way, and has the final say in making them happen that way. GMs don't exercise authorial power in roleplaying games - not usually, anyway. They use impartial judgment, based on the situation, to adjudicate outcomes. They don't just declare 'it's this way, because that's how I want it to be'. At least, they're not normally 'supposed' to. They're supposed to say 'it's this way, because that's how I judge, based on these factors, it would be'.

It's about consistency. A ruling carries the idea that the GM has some set of variables and criteria in his head that he's evaluating to make a decision that isn't covered by the game rules. He's following some rules, whether they're stated or not.
Fiat is just making something up on the spot. It may still use a set of criteria in the GM's head, but it's not as repeatable as a ruling. Fiat grows to become campaign material. Rulings grow to be house rules.
At least, that's how I look at it.

Fiat, I think, has no requirement for anything. It doesn't need to be consistent with anything. No justification - it's a straight declaration with no support.

Rulings, if there is precedent, rely on it to some degree - hence consistency - agreement with what has been ruled before, or what has been explicitly stated in the books.

It's a decent enough distinction, one that I could get behind. Though I really only care about such stuff when arguing on the internet, so...not too much. ;).

Mind if I ask what is the point of this distinction?

GM's exercise Fiat power when they create their world.  Without Fiat there is no world to emulate.  That having been said, at the table during play, most of the time it's ruling, but Fiat does happen, when things come up concerning the world.

As far as rulings go, you're drawing a very fine line.  A GM can consider a player's action, decide if that's how it would happen under the rules, might even think that the player does have a very good point, and still declare against it, because he doesn't want the rules to run under that interpretation at his table.  Is that ruling or Fiat?  It seems like rulings, in the end, come from Fiat, because unless you follow the rules 100% (in which case there are no rulings), there will be multiple valid ways of interpreting a ruling.

I like to know what things mean. It makes my own thinking clearer on a number of related issues when I know exactly what's going on.

It's hard to talk about things when you don't know, in your own mind, exactly what you mean.

For instance - I know exactly what I mean when I say 'roleplaying'. Now, not everyone is going to use my definition - but when I get in discussions about roleplaying with someone, I can clearly, accurately, and precisely tell them what I, personally, am using the term to mean, at the start of the discussion.

A lot of wasted verbiage falls by the wayside if you can clearly define your terms before beginning a discussion.

Also - I'm working on a setting (got the location for the megadungeon ready - plus some thoughts about the local culture) and ruleset for an upcoming game. When it comes to the rules, which aren't going to be 'official', I'd like to be able to clearly and easily explain the difference between me, the DM, making a ruling, and 'fiat'.

Some players conflate DM ruling with fiat, and considering the negative associations fiat has, I'd like to be able to express the difference as clearly as I can.

Amber & GM Fiat (http://ewilen.livejournal.com/34950.html) is my take on the language of "fiat" from a while back.

Quote from: CRKrueger;500141GM's exercise Fiat power when they create their world.  Without Fiat there is no world to emulate.

Agreed.

QuoteThat having been said, at the table during play, most of the time it's ruling, but Fiat does happen, when things come up concerning the world.

I'd say that in a perfect, ideal game the world is created, and once play begins, it runs procedurally. If, for instance, you put monsters down, and then decide, in play, right before the players decide to go to hex F12, that there's a monster juuust right for them to fight, and plop it down there that instant just for them? That's fiat. You wanted it to be that way, so you made it that way. Now, if, instead, you looked at the terrain for F12, and considered the time of day, the noise signature of the party? Then put down a monster based on what would logically be there, given the assumptions? That's not really fiat - it's procedural generation, although the procedure is unwritten, it's still there. I'd probably prefer something written down - otherwise, I might just plop whatever seems coolest, and that generally ends up pretty obviously being me just tossing my favorite monsters at the group. I've had it happen to me, and it gets boring.

QuoteAs far as rulings go, you're drawing a very fine line.

Yup.  

QuoteA GM can consider a player's action, decide if that's how it would happen under the rules, might even think that the player does have a very good point, and still declare against it, because he doesn't want the rules to run under that interpretation at his table. Is that ruling or Fiat?  It seems like rulings, in the end, come from Fiat, because unless you follow the rules 100% (in which case there are no rulings), there will be multiple valid ways of interpreting a ruling.

I'm not quite clear on what you're saying here. What do you mean when you say 'the gm considers a player's action, and declares against it'? I can think of a few different situations this might apply to - could you clarify?

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;500150Amber & GM Fiat (http://ewilen.livejournal.com/34950.html) is my take on the language of "fiat" from a while back.

Thanks for the link.

Your reasons for posting that stuff are much as mine are for posting here. Nihil novi, etc.

 

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;my feeling at the moment is that "GM Fiat" is one of those terms whose flexibility of meaning hinders communication rather than easing it. In my opinion it'd be far better for people to be explicit in their discussion of a variety of game mechanics and gaming styles instead of classing them all under "GM Fiat".

You put up a couple hypotheticals -

Rulings are under constraint - there are factors outside personal preference which dictate the outcome.

Fiat is ultimately personal preference.

I'm going to respond to the hypotheticals you posted, and see if anything shakes out.

QuotePossibilities (probably not exhaustive):

Quote--Fudging or overruling dicerolls when they produce an unwanted effect

The key here is 'unwanted'. Fiat arises from desire. You have an outcome you 'want', and you declare that outcome to be fact. So, this would be an expression of fiat. Who cares about the dice? Let it be thus!

Quote--Overruling rules when they yield a nonsensical effect

This is different. You don't overrule the rule when you 'want' to - you do it when it yields a result that doesn't agree with the precedent, with the assumptions of the game, with logic. That's a 'ruling' - your personal desire doesn't enter into it.

Quote--Making on the spot rulings to bridge holes in the rules (like, how long does it take to get across the lake in a rowboat, assuming that matters)

Assuming you base your decision on something besides naked preference. If you think - it's about 5 miles across, I can't row much faster than I can walk - let's say, an hour and a half. That's a ruling. You based it on shared notions of space and time. Now, if you think 'I want it to take an hour and a half, because that's how long it takes for the horse the bad guy is riding to get to the castle' - that's fiat. You wanted it to be a certain way for reasons unconnected to the activity you're adjudicating, and you declared it was going to be that way

Quote--Making on the spot rulings to bridge holes in preparation (like, is there a doctor in town?)

This is why there are tables showing what services are available - so you have a procedure. Still, again, personal wants come in. "I want there to be a doctor, because I don't want them to have to wait while they heal up" is fiat. "It's a big town, there's no way there's no doctor" is a ruling.

Something is coming out, here. Outcomes. If your ruling arises from the outcome, that's fiat. If your ruling arises from a consideration of the situation, that's not fiat.

Quote--Judging whether a particular rule applies to a given situation

This is pretty much logic. If you're honest, you'll be impartial, and impartiality is ruling, not fiat. And again, impartiality is a big part of it.

Quote--Judging which factors apply to a given situation

Again - if you decide which factors apply based on attachment to given outcome, that's fiat. If you don't consider outcome, only the situation, that's ruling.

QuoteAnd does it matter what the GM's motive or criterion is for doing any of these things?

I think this is the absolute crux of it.

QuoteE.g., is it "GM Fiat" to rule that a struggle for possession of a gun will be governed by a straight comparison of two characters' Strength? Or is it only "Fiat" if the GM would choose Dexterity if it led to what was, in the GM's judgment, a more satisfying direction for play?

If you decide to use Strength because you think it's a more reasonable choice given the circumstances, that's ruling. If you decide to use Dexterity because you think it will lead to the outcome you desire? That's pushing fiat. I'd say fiat disguised as ruling. If the GM were honest, he'd just say 'Player Y wins, because I want him to, because I think we'll have more fun that way'.

QuoteDoes it matter if the GM's ruling has only a partial effect on whatever the player/group cares about? E.g., the GM states that characters who fall off a cliffside during a fight will die, automatically. But players can still influence whether their characters die--by avoiding falling offf the cliff.

If he rules instant death because he honestly believes that's the logical result, and the appropriate result given the genre, etc, then it's a ruling. Regardless of player agency.

QuoteDoes it matter if the GM's ruling comes before or after the execution of a resolution mechanic? I.e., in the previous example, is it Fiat if the first time a character falls off the cliff, the GM goes "He's dead, dude", when the players hadn't been told explicitly that it was a 1000 foot drop, with no handholds, onto sharp rocks?

This is a communication problem masquerading as a fiat/ruling dilemma. It doesn't matter whether the GM makes the decision before or after the character falls - what matters is whether the GM makes the decision based on an impartial judgment arising from the specifics of the situation.

The real problem with this last example is that there was a failure in communicating the stakes/situation between the GM and the Player. What to DO about that failure is kind of outside the bounds of this particular discussion. (But I'd say it's a good time for some GM fiat - if the DM really forgot to give info the character rightfully should have had, it turns out he didn't fall after all).

Quote from: Kaldric;500162This is a communication problem masquerading as a fiat/ruling dilemma...

The real problem with this last example is that there was a failure in communicating the stakes/situation between the GM and the Player.

The distinction between fiat and ruling is a communicative one. Fiat is what we call it when a GM's conversational strategies fail to convince others that their statements are legitimate.

Quote from: Rincewind1;500140Mind if I ask what is the point of this distinction?

It's the distinction between a GM being a referee, and being an arsehole.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;500168The distinction between fiat and ruling is a communicative one. Fiat is what we call it when a GM's conversational strategies fail to convince others that their statements are legitimate.

That seems true, from the perspective of a player.

What about from the perspective of the GM?

edit: 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.

The term fiat is definitely overused, and when applied to the regular functioning of the GM in a dismissive way by players, is one of my pet hates.

GM: "here's the setup for tonight's game and here's how I see it as interacting with published material."

Entitled player fresh from rpg.net:"fiat, hand-waving, and fluff..."

Gah.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;500168The distinction between fiat and ruling is a communicative one. Fiat is what we call it when a GM's conversational strategies fail to convince others that their statements are legitimate.

Nicely phrased. May I cite that?

And, of course, the simplest way to convince people your statements are legitimate is to make legitimate statements. So, it might help to point out an easy test for whether a ruling is 'legitimate'.

Quote from: Kaldric;500125So. If anyone claims something is "DM fiat" when the situation concerns a DM making a considered, impartial judgment based on precedent, the genre, and common sense, you can tell him he's wrong.

Rulings are not (generally) fiat. If the DM considers the situation and makes a judgment, that's a ruling. If the DM wants something to be a certain way, and simply declares that to be so - that's fiat.

I have used DM Fiat.

In a d20 Traveller game, the PCs rolled a misjump at the beginning of the adventure that would have ended in a result of "Ship Destroyed". No fault of theirs, just an incredibly bad dice roll.

If I used a DM Ruling, then there is not much interpretation beyond "Ship Destroyed". The PCs may have escaped in a lifeboat or vacc suits and lived, but the game would have been crippled.

I used DM Fiat and said that didn't happen. Instead I had them misjump almost 30 parsecs away from their destination. They had to travel back the long way, but they still had their ship and the game could go on.

Not a ruling or an interpretation. A decision based on my God-given right as a Viking Hat GM. DM Fiat.

Because sometimes the game must go on.

EDIT: Fiat does not have to be a bad thing, but I agree that with your definition it is different than a ruling.

GM Fiat: a resolution for setting to story continuity.
GM Ruling: a resolution for setting to mechanics continuity.

As per expected from existence in an imperfect world, the world can have GMs with bad judgment in either or both aspects.

Fiat: Outside of establishing the setting's background framework, meddling in the players' story overmuch with Fiat is just asking for it. Like oregano, a little goes a long way. Come off too strong and you're overwhelming and repulsive.

Ruling: Outside of weird moments where rules clash with "game reality," or other rules, excess rulings creates a backlog which will eventually contradict. And when too many contradictions occur you threaten to undermine your credibility. Intervene too much and you're fickle and confusing.

We discussed this to great lengths on my German language forum section. Ultimately I was convinced by one of the participants that:

- it is impossible to define once and for all the boundary line seperating fiat from rulings
- the true line of demarkation lies within the GM's mind. (the participant showed me that my argumentation ultimately leads to that conclusion, to which I replied: yes.)

Recognized as such, fiat is a thought crime, and one that often lacks a smoking gun.

Not the external, communicative process is the important thing here, but the thoughts and feelings of the GM at the moment of making a decision.

Thus, in pragmatic practice, TRUST becomes important, all-important.

Sidenote: Many people online seemingly have been "abused" by GMs and thus lost all capacity for trust. This makes online discussions about the issue very tiresome oftentimes.

In an RPG, EVERY MOMENT relies on GM fiat.

"You are attacked by giants in the alley way, who roll boulders and yell out "STRIKE!!! ""<---GM fiat

"You are not attacked by any giants, and in fact your progress through the alley way is pleasant and potentially a source of nostalgic reminiscence when you are in your dotage."<--GM fiat

That's what an RPG is. You have to trust your GM to provide appropriate stuff for you to interact with.

I thought it was when other people do it, it's fiat. When I do it, it's a ruling! :D Seriously though i think some people hit it on the head-internal consistency.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;500168The distinction between fiat and ruling is a communicative one. Fiat is what we call it when a GM's conversational strategies fail to convince others that their statements are legitimate.

Quote from: Settembrini;500226We discussed this to great lengths on my German language forum section. Ultimately I was convinced by one of the participants that:

- it is impossible to define once and for all the boundary line seperating fiat from rulings
- the true line of demarkation lies within the GM's mind. (the participant showed me that my argumentation ultimately leads to that conclusion, to which I replied: yes.)

Recognized as such, fiat is a thought crime, and one that often lacks a smoking gun.

Not the external, communicative process is the important thing here, but the thoughts and feelings of the GM at the moment of making a decision.

Thus, in pragmatic practice, TRUST becomes important, all-important.

Sidenote: Many people online seemingly have been "abused" by GMs and thus lost all capacity for trust. This makes online discussions about the issue very tiresome oftentimes.

I'm going with these two. I do think Sett's reference to the demarcation line within the GM's mind is an important one (and something I'm interested in) but which ultimately is meaningless when you consider Psuedoephedrine's defintion.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: 1of3;500207Nicely phrased. May I cite that?

Sure.

It 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.

I think people are using slightly varying defintions of GM fiat here. I usually take it to mean the GM making a decision over and above what the rules may or may not actually say. It doesn't automatically have to be a negative thing (sometimes as a player I want GM fiat to overule unusual mechanical results or help speed things along).

To a player, the distinction between ruling and fiat is one of appearance. After all, the player isn't making the decision between the two, and thus can only judge on appearance.

To a GM, the distinction is not one of appearance. There are two different processes going on - real processes, not simply apparent ones. They are two different methods of reaching a decision. The differences between the methods are knowable.

I think a good approach when making DM judgements on whether something happens is not to decide "Yes" or "No" but to declare a probability - tell the players what it is - then let the dice decide.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;500259I think people are using slightly varying defintions of GM fiat here. I usually take it to mean the GM making a decision over and above what the rules may or may not actually say. It doesn't automatically have to be a negative thing (sometimes as a player I want GM fiat to overule unusual mechanical results or help speed things along).

What GM rulings, under this definition, would not be fiat?

Quote from: Kaldric;500260The differences between the methods are knowable.

Only by deduction and assumptions. Not in a material way, you cannot look into someone elses mind.

Quote from: Kaldric;500263What GM rulings, under this definition, would not be fiat?

Deciding 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).

Quote from: S'mon;500261I think a good approach when making DM judgements on whether something happens is not to decide "Yes" or "No" but to declare a probability - tell the players what it is - then let the dice decide.

Sounds like a plan. But it's kind of beside the point - which I'd like to keep somewhat close to 'what's the difference, if any, between fiat and ruling'.

So far, I have: Fiat 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.

There's also the add fillip of perspective - to a player, all that matters is the justification, or appearance thereof. To a DM, what matters is where the decision comes from - the facts of the scenario, or his preference.

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 (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/3924/roleplaying-games/rules-vs-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.

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.

Rule of cooll/funny are sinful thinking and as such a thought crime.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;501055Things 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.

A definition by analogy: A judge makes a ruling on a case. If the facts of the case justify the ruling, it's not fiat. If the judge makes a ruling from his own authority, rather than the facts of the case, it's fiat. (generally not allowed in most legal systems)

Things that might be pertinent to a case: The facts of what happened. The written law. Precedent. Testimony.

Things that might affect a ruling that aren't pertinent to the case: The judge's desire to get this case out of the way quickly. The judge's personal distaste for a party involved. The judge's preference for an outcome based on his political or religious leanings. The judge's desire for an exciting case. The judge's desire to be re-elected or re-appointed. The judge's desire to avoid extra paperwork.

In the case of an RPG, the judge is the DM and the scenario is the case he's ruling on.

I think it'd be easier to just say that "GM fiat" doesn't parse well under some RPG systems and some roleplaying paradigms.

In practice where I've seen it used, as opposed to theoretical nitpicking, it's either been:

1. Talking about the lack of a resolution system for significant outcomes, so that the ultimate determination is based on pure GM judgment--especially if there aren't any satisfactory guidelines for making the judgment. E.g. way back in 1990 (http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp/msg/51c7cb06383cc192?dmode=source) I was bitching about the style of GMing where PCs couldn't die except if, in the GM's opinion, they did something stupid. Otherwise the mechanics and everything else could be overruled and fudged to keep PCs from dying.

The complaint implicit in the term "GM fiat" makes sense in a paradigm where tactical decision making and weighing of relative risks is part of the game. Possibly not in other paradigms.

2. More recently, I've mostly seen the term coming from Forge/story-game quarters (and even then, a few years ago) where the closest I could parse it was that the entire discussion was based on experience with heavily-plotted/storified scenario construction and GMing, and little experience with anything else. As a result the term was mainly a complaint/critique of the fact that players never really had much influence on their characters' destiny or the outcome of the scenarios. It was assumed that the rules, PC actions, "facts" (both known and hidden) of the scenario, would always be overruled by GM rulings as much as was needed to keep the scenario on track. Or at least to preserve a certain dramatic structure, even if the details changed. (For example, if the villain was accidentally killed in "act one", the GM would change things around so that he was really only a henchman of the real bad guy.)

If a game is played from a simulationist perspective, both (1) and (2) are still operative concepts. But if the game is played from a collaborative story perspective, "GM fiat" breaks down as a concept--especially if the game doesn't allow anyone to make a final declaration of fact without challenge. For example in Polaris, even if we overlook the fact that the GM function is diffused among the players and rotates, anything the GM-of-the-moment ("the Mistaken") says can ultimately be submitted to a die roll. Basically the same applies to any "stakes-setting" game. Furthermore, it's taken for granted that people are saying stuff just to screw with the PC, or because it sounds cool. Under this paradigm, you don't really have (1) or (2). At most you have a crappy spaz of a GM, just as players can also be horrible. Even if the GM has a traditional function under the formal rules of a game, once everyone buys into the idea that it's the GM's responsibility & prerogative to make cool things happen, as pretty much the GM's only purpose, with "cool" understood in terms of the group, then a bad GM is just a bad GM just like a bad player is someone who messes up the group vibe. The issue of power imbalance implicit in "GM fiat" falls away.

Harrumph. I dislike leaving important terms under erasure. I think I can define 'fiat' sufficiently. Combining it with GM means it depends on what, exactly, the GM does - and that function changes from game to game, group to group. I can describe what a GM does in my playstyle, or in idealized playstyles, but that's not super useful when the rubber meets the road.

Quote from: Settembrini;501061Rule of cooll/funny are sinful thinking and as such a thought crime.

I normally stay away from rule of cool, but that's all the people I'm running for are about. One of them is playing an antipaladin of Aries who travelled the world to learn it's fighting arts. He fights with paired nunchucks, paired hand crossbows, and a whip... But he still has hoplite armor on. His weapons are fixed on his waist like a utility belt.